Enabling Sexual Predators -- Who's On Board?

Fox"News"? The White House?

To say that their attempts to coverup and, even worse, to rationalize a sexual predator's behavior are disturbing is to make a dramatic understatement.

I'm very worried about some of these people -- especially the ones who claim some ownership over "family values" and then demonstrate a complete lack of insight into what that phrase might really mean away from the cynical political stage that gives them the public's ear. If these politicians and pundits and talking heads don't, for example, understand the difference between preying on children and an affair with a consenting adult, can they be trusted to behave appropriately around, or on behalf of, our kids?

Meanwhile, Brit Hume of Fox News Sunday can't fathom the difference between Bill Clinton's extramarital affair with a consenting adult and the sicko criminal behavior of a dirty old Republican Congressman who preys on kids.

Hume said that while Foley is now "in total disgrace in his party," Clinton's "inappropriate behavior toward a subordinate [didn't] even cost Bill Clinton his standing in his party."

Clearly, Mark Foley's behavior has been disgusting. But are these men who dissemble on his behalf really any better? People talk about the Republican Culture of Corruption (before Foley, we saw Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Tom DeLay and Rep. Bob Ney go down in flames), but this takes the unsavory factor to a whole new level.

UPDATE: House Speaker Dennis Hastert has pulled mention of protecting children in cyberspace off of his web site. What is the message he's trying to send?

Schadenfreude-a-palooza

I'm finding it hard to believe that Ann Coulter is as stupid as she appears to be. She makes her living by stirring the pot, so you'd think she would be on her best behavior, anticipating that her many enemies would put her, and her work, under a microscope. (Then again, the same standard applied to Rush Limbaugh, Bill Clinton, Tom DeLay and a bunch of other poliltical lightening rods, and they couldn't figure it out. When will people learn?)

As I've been following the saga of Joe Lieberman this past week, I've been wondering why people are so confused about how political parties work. (We've been having a related drama here in Chattanooga this week, as Democratic officials have been shocked to discover that they are expected to support Democrat candidates and not those of the opposition.) Here is the way things work in a nutshell: if you want to be an official member of a political party, you will be expected to support the candidates fielded by that party. If you want to play à la carte politics, you should not become an official of a political party. If you hold an elected office of a political party, you are expected to adhere to the general philosophy of that party. If you become enamored with your party's nemesis, don't be surprised if your party goes shopping for a better candidate. And if you're an official member of that party, you will be expected to support the nominee, even if he's not the incumbent. OK. Is that clear now?

(Oh, yeah, and if you read a local politics blog, don't be suprised to discover that it's a partisan site... Sheesh! Why is that such a shock for some people?!?)

I know some people wanted to see Ken Lay rot in prison, but he dodged that bullet. I hope his numerous victims are able to pick over what's left of his estate. If there is a hell, it's a bit more crowded today.

And finally, how much does it suck to be a falafel-lovin', lefty-hatin' Bill O'Reilly and see a snarky, smug liberal overtake your deranged, hate-spewing show in the ratings?

I guess neither Ailes or O'Reilly realize that when you tie your entire show and network to a president, you become as popular or unpopular as Bush has. Or as Nickolas D. Kristof said in the NYTimes [alternate link]:

"The real victims of Fox News weren't the liberals it attacked, but the conservatives who believed it....."

The Right Implodes

I've had a busy couple of days -- meetings, appointments, errands, more meetings... and I never did make it to the grocery store today, and I only finally make it home at around 10pm. I'm not complaining -- it's all good stuff -- but I sure did miss a lot news-wise!

Last I heard, we were still on the Delay collapse, and maybe there was a glimmer of a story about McCain speaking at Falwell's "university"... but when I took a quick look around tonight... wha???

John McCain? Maverick no more. Rather, he can't decide which wingnut to brown-nose next! And all that campaign finance reform silliness? Oh, no -- that wasn't what he meant at all!!

But that's nothing...

George Bush? Plame leaker. No kidding.

I'm speechless.

The Hammer has LEFT the building!

He can't win. The big question is who will run in his place? But in the meantime, many people are really going to enjoy this.

UPDATE: what was it that did him in? Was it the corruption? Or was it the murder investigation?

Tom DeLay...

No, he's not dead. Though he may be through politically...

Today is crunch time for Tom. He's going to spend the evening with his bestest buddies, watching the primary returns.

update #1: results are coming in here. Also, the Ciro race's results are here (via americablog).

update #2: woot! It looks like DeLay scored a victory in the primary, which may well pave the way for a democratic pickup in this district!

Dick, Rick, Dole, Iran, Iraq and more!

This has been a pretty busy news week. While the Dick Cheney story finally starts to die down, others (like the port security story) are just starting to pick up steam:

The Republicans are still having major problems with their ethical lapses. Rick Santorum's is just the latest corruption scandal to hit the sleazy House of DeLay.

And speaking of sleaze, does anyone think that it is good for our democracy when a former member of Congress is paid by a foreign government to lobby Congress on their behalf when the lobbyist's own wife is a current Senator?

With so many differences between our nations, how might we find common ground with the people of Iran? Why by hating gay people, of course!

How are things going in Iraq these days? Well, they're FUBAR, and even Bill O'Reilly is starting to talk in terms of cuttin' 'n' runnin'.

But not all the news is bad! The progressive wing of the Democratic party is finally getting busy. They've set up a Progressive Patriots Fund, plus a group of activists from the progressive community have recently launched the Progressive Legislative Action Network (PLAN).

Also, the Tennessee Coalition to Abolish State Killing now has a blog.

And finally, because I'm sure you've all been wanting to know, here are the Five Most Dangerous Children's Books Ever Written, According to Sean Hannity.

The Cult of Bush?

This great article from Glenn Greenwald goes a long way toward explaining some of how I feel as a former republican. There's a lot more to it than I'm quoting here, so I recommend reading the whole thing, but here are a few short exerpts:

Now, in order to be considered a "liberal," only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a "liberal," regardless of the ground on which the criticism is based. And the more one criticizes him, by definition, the more "liberal" one is. Whether one is a "liberal" -- or, for that matter, a "conservative" -- is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush.

One can see this principle at work most illustratively in how Bush followers talk about Andrew Sullivan. In the couple of years after 9/11, Bush followers revered Sullivan, as he stood loyally behind Bush, providing the rhetorical justifications for almost every Bush action. And even prior to the Bush Administration, Sullivan was a fully accepted member of the conservative circle. Nobody questioned the bona fides of his conservative credentials because he ascribed to the conservative view on almost every significant political issue.

Despite not having changed his views on very many, if any, of those issues, Sullivan is now frequently called a "liberal" (at best) when he is talked about by Bush followers. What has changed are not his political views or ideological orientation. Instead, he no longer instinctively and blindly praises George Bush, but periodically, even frequently, criticizes Bush. By definition, then, he is no longer a "conservative."

He then quotes Sullivan at length, who offers numerous examples of just this dynamic. I admit to accusing some supposed democrats of not really being democrats (*cough* *joementum* *cough* *cough*), but I do so when they betray the ideology of the party, not because they fail to support the positions of an individual.

That "conservatism" has come to mean "loyalty to George Bush" is particularly ironic given how truly un-conservative the Administration is. It is not only the obvious (though significant) explosion of deficit spending under this Administration – and that explosion has occurred far beyond military or 9/11-related spending and extends into almost all arenas of domestic programs as well. Far beyond that is the fact that the core, defining attributes of political conservatism could not be any more foreign to the world view of the Bush follower.

As much as any policy prescriptions, conservatism has always been based, more than anything else, on a fundamental distrust of the power of the federal government and a corresponding belief that that power ought to be as restrained as possible, particularly when it comes to its application by the Government to American citizens. It was that deeply rooted distrust that led to conservatives’ vigorous advocacy of states’ rights over centralized power in the federal government, accompanied by demands that the intrusion of the Federal Government in the lives of American citizens be minimized.

Is there anything more antithetical to that ethos than the rabid, power-hungry appetites of Bush followers? There is not an iota of distrust of the Federal Government among them. Quite the contrary. Whereas distrust of the government was quite recently a hallmark of conservatism, expressing distrust of George Bush and the expansive governmental powers he is pursuing subjects one to accusations of being a leftist, subversive loon.

Indeed, as many Bush followers themselves admit, the central belief of the Bush follower's "conservatism" is no longer one that ascribes to a limited federal government -- but is precisely that there ought to be no limits on the powers claimed by Bush precisely because we trust him, and we trust in him absolutely. He wants to protect us and do good. He is not our enemy but our protector. And there is no reason to entertain suspicions or distrust of him or his motives because he is Good.

We need no oversight of the Federal Government’s eavesdropping powers because we trust Bush to eavesdrop in secret for the Good. We need no judicial review of Bush’s decrees regarding who is an "enemy combatant" and who can be detained indefinitely with no due process because we trust Bush to know who is bad and who deserves this. We need no restraints from Congress on Bush’s ability to exercise war powers, even against American citizens on U.S. soil, because we trust Bush to exercise these powers for our own good.

The blind faith placed in the Federal Government, and particularly in our Commander-in-Chief, by the contemporary "conservative" is the very opposite of all that which conservatism has stood for for the last four decades. The anti-government ethos espoused by Barry Goldwater and even Ronald Reagan is wholly unrecognizable in Bush followers, who – at least thus far – have discovered no limits on the powers that ought to be vested in George Bush to enable him to do good on behalf of all of us.

And in that regard, people like Michelle Malkin, John Hinderaker, Jonah Goldberg and Hugh Hewitt are not conservatives. They are authoritarian cultists. Their allegiance is not to any principles of government but to strong authority through a single leader.

Just to be clear, I don't think this is a trait that is limited to the lunatic fringe people like Malkin, Coulter and others of their deranged ilk (like the bloggers to which Greenwald repeatedly refers). Blind loyalty is required from republicans even by those in the supposed mainstream of the party -- loyalty not only to Bush, but also to his principle retinue -- just look at the way people reacted to criticism of Dick Cheney's disasterous handling of a hunting accident (before he'd even said a word, people were tumbling over each other to deflect the blame for the accident from Cheney as though he were some sort of diety, instead of a human); or look at the way mainstream republicans (with no objections from members of the party) are bending over backwards to make it possible for the unbelievably sleazy Tom DeLay to continue slithering his way through Congress (and even onto the committee that is investigating his close friend and financier, Jack Abramoff).

For a glimpse of how actual conservatives quite recently used to think, one should read this article at FreeRepublic.com, which decries the dangerous loss of liberty and privacy as a result of the Clinton Administration's use of a "secret court" (something called the "FISA court") which actually enables the Federal Government to eavesdrop on American citizens! Worse -- much worse -- the judicial approval which the Government (used to) obtain for this eavesdropping is in secret, so we don't even know who is being eavesdropped on! How can we possibly trust the Government not to abuse this power if they can obtain warrants in secret?

Conservatives used to consider things like this to be quite disturbing and bad -- and the eavesdropping then was at least with judicial oversight. Now, George Bush is in office, and all of the distrust we used to have of the Federal Government exercising these powers has evaporated, because we trust in George Bush to do what is best for us. He should not just have those powers, but many more, and he should exercise all of them in secret, too, with no "interference" from the courts or Congress.

That is why I say that whatever else these Bush followers are, they are not conservative.

Bush et al plumb new depths of shamelessness

Every time you think they can't sink any lower, someone starts digging!

If Bush could figure out how to do away with that pesky Congress once and for all, he'd probably jump at the chance. But all he can do at the moment is hope they're not paying attention. The scary thing is, it's not unheard of for Congress to pass legislation without reading it, so this is not a hopeless strategy. It is pretty sad, though, when you consider that he has what used to be a rubber-stamp Congress -- but his ratings have fallen enough so even they are unwilling to pass his deranged proposals. Word has it, he may now be using threats, bribery and extortion in an attempt to bring back some discipline.

And, this one is hard to believe, even given all the crooked deals and corruption coming from the republicans in this Congess: Tom DeLay appoints himself to committee that is investigating Abramoff (via Pensito Review). Sigh. I know there are a lot of good republicans out there, but the bunch who are currently running Congress are just plain evil, and no one is even trying to stand up to them. Not only are republicans unwilling to confront the corruption, but they seem to be quite eager to clear the way and reward it.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -- (probably misattributed to) Edmund Burke (who did say "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.")

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy...

The Warrant

The Perp

Who, by the way, is yet another republican chickenhawk
and one of the leaders of the republican party's current Culture of Corruption.

Cagle

Frank Cagle in Knoxville's Metro Pulse went off this past week:

If you Republican House members move quickly, maybe some of the people who traditionally vote Republican will stay with you. Otherwise, there will be no reason to keep any of you around. You see, you weren't elected just because people like Republicans. You were elected because you are supposed to believe in something. If you insist on spending down our Treasury like a drunken Powerball winner, they don’t care what you call yourselves. You are a bunch of self-righteous, arrogant hypocrites. If you keep this up, some of us are going to get mad.

Random newsbits

As Judith Miller testifies this morning about the outing of Valerie Plame, remember this little tidbit:

The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.

And as Tom DeLay continues to serve in the House of Representives, let us recall the strong stand taken by our own Chris Clem:

Our Founding Fathers knew that the legislature needed the ability to dismiss members when the integrity of the system was called into question. Our Founding Fathers knew that the legislature may need to protect its process just like a bank or a daycare needs to protect its clients.

I imagine we might have to wait until after the weekend to hear Clem's call for DeLay's resignation, eh?

Hunter responds to Mark Noonan:

Welcome to the world of the politics of personal destruction, you tubthumping, chin-jutting, Bush humping gits. Welcome to the nasty and partisan world that Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt, Grover Norquist, Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, and a legion of insignificant lowest-rung toadies like yourselves nurtured into fruition daily with eager, grubby hands, and now look upon with dull-faced faux horror.

Oh, the Virtues! They could fill a book! Bennett stands behind his racist remarks. And then he goes on to demonstrate that he really doesn't have a clue as to why what he said upset people:

I was putting forward a hypothetical proposition. Put that forward. Examined it. And then said about it that it's morally reprehensible. To recommend abortion of an entire group of people in order to lower your crime rate is morally reprehensible. But this is what happens when you argue that the ends can justify the means.

TGIF. It's been quite a week. Perhaps someone will manage to take the high road in October...

UPDATE: ... or sooner! Enter Barak Obama:

The bottom line is that our job is harder than the conservatives' job. After all, it's easy to articulate a belligerent foreign policy based solely on unilateral military action, a policy that sounds tough and acts dumb; it's harder to craft a foreign policy that's tough and smart. It's easy to dismantle government safety nets; it's harder to transform those safety nets so that they work for people and can be paid for. It's easy to embrace a theological absolutism; it's harder to find the right balance between the legitimate role of faith in our lives and the demands of our civic religion. But that's our job. And I firmly believe that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, or oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. A polarized electorate that is turned off of politics, and easily dismisses both parties because of the nasty, dishonest tone of the debate, works perfectly well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government because, in the end, a cynical electorate is a selfish electorate.

Ob DeLay Post

Yeah, I heard about DeLay. Sorry I've been quiet, but it's been a really busy week. I'm behind at work, behind at home, and all the activism stuff is building up as well. On the up side, I was stopped for speeding this afternoon (on Hwy. 153, if any locals are wondering), and I didn't get a ticket! The cop took pity on me. Score! Then I took my car in for its regular service and it cost less than $50! Double Score! After all this, I finally arrived home to read the news about DeLay. I turned on the news, and the Republicans have got so many surrogates out spinning for them, it looks like a knitting mill! It's pretty hilarious (you either gotta laugh or cry and between the cell phone company and the cop, I've got no juice left) to see so many of the same people who went after Clinton (over a blow job, no less) crying about how DeLay's legal troubles are all just politics. Ha. Ha.

UPDATE: in all my distraction, I've been missing the crescendo as the Stacey Campfield story has gone national. Fortunately, egalia at TGW has been collecting links.

Another Top 10 List

Well they've finally gone and done it... thanks to the actions of Chan Chandler (1) the right-wing have now perverted Christianity to the point where Democrats are no longer welcome in church. Jesus wept. Elsewhere, Tom DeLay (2) is lecturing people on humility and responsibility (really), the evidence that George W. Bush (3) lied America into war is staring everyone in the face, and Don Sherwood (4) might have choked his mistress. Meanwhile, Pat Robertson (6) has taken the last train to Loonyville, Laura Bush (7) tells a story about a horse's penis, and Kenneth Tomlinson (9) is seeing liberal bias everywhere.

Yep, it's the Top 10 Conservative Idiots, Jesus Wept Edition.

WWJD?

Yes, Pat Robertson is insane.

Pat Robertson's contradictory theology: God won't stop a tsunami -- but might respond to Gay Days with an earthquake

But we already knew that, didn't we?

Robertson's claims of the power of his prayers. For example, Robertson claims to have used the power of prayer to steer hurricanes away from his companies' Virginia Beach, Virginia headquarters. He took credit for steering the course in 1985 of Hurricane Gloria, which caused millions of dollars of destruction in many states along the east coast. He made a similar claim about another destructive storm, Hurricane Felix, in 1995.

Why should Pat Robertson be any different? There are plenty of these attention-seekers, supposedly men of God, who are perfectly willing to whore out Jesus for all sorts of sleazy purposes -- and the religious right eagerly gobbles it all up.

Yet the living Jesus always finds a way of getting past the money-changers, doesn't he? Every generation produces a Jesus to suit its own purposes. How fitting that in the Age of Information our broadcasters have marketed a Jesus so narrowly defined that he resembles little more than a lobbyist loitering outside Tom DeLay's office hoping for a few minutes of the great man's time.

Who will defend Jesus from these money-changers? Clearly, it won't be his favorite pimp, Bill Frist. Are there enough people who are even willing to try?

It is now clear there are some who will fight this religious war by any means necessary. So we will fight, but not the way they do. We must never lie or misrepresent the facts or the truth. We must not demonize or vilify those who are our opponents. We must claim that those who disagree with our judgments are still real people of faith. We must not fight the way they do, but fight we must. A great deal is at stake in this battle for the heart and soul of faith in America and for the nation's future itself. We will not allow faith to be put into the service of one political agenda.

This is a call for the rest of the churches to wake up. This is a call for people of faith everywhere to stand up and let their faith be heard. This is not a call to be just concerned, or just a little worried, or even just alarmed. This is a call for clear speech and courageous action. This is a call to take back our faith, and in the words of the prophet Micah, "to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with our God."