I've had nothing to say about Larry Craig and his Minnesota restroom stall travails; it seems to me that most everything that can be said already has been. However, the transcript of Craig's interrogation by investigator Dave Karsnial fairly demands some comment or other. This is fascinating reading, not just for its obvious prurience or the clash of banality and status - a United States senator being grilled by a cop over an alleged sexual solicitation in an airport restroom, criminy - but for the inescapable familiarity of the narrative. We know this routine by heart, after all: the interrogation of the suspect, the dangled offer of the "out," the resistance, the evasion, the pursuit. The struggle over the framing of the truth. It's the stuff of every gritty cop show on television, every true crime series offered on cable.
We know this ritual like we know our own names, our own lives. It's in our cultural DNA. We just never, ever expected to see it applied in this context.
Highlights, sort of, from the exchange: DK: Okay. Um, I just wanna start off with a your side of the story, okay. So, a
To be sure, the officer never really wants to simply hear your side; he just wants you to confess to any and all charges so he can commence with the paperwork. Anyone familiar with police shows knows this. It's early on in the exchange, so investigator Karsnial merely registers his disagreement with suspect Craig's characterization of events without comment, though in blunt fashion. To continue...
LC: So I go into the bathroom here as I normally do. I’m a commuter too here.
DK: Okay.
LC: I sit down, um, to go to the bathroom and ah, you said our feet bumped. I believe they did, ah, because I reached down and scooted over and um, the next thing I knew, under the bathroom divider comes a card that says Police. Now, um (sigh) that’s about as far as I can take it, I don’t know of anything else. Ah, your foot came toward mine, mine came towards yours, was that natural? I don’t know. Did we bump? Yes. I think we did. You said so. I don’t disagree with that.
DK: Okay. I don’t want to get into a pissing match here.
LC: We’re not going to.DK: Okay. And when you went in the stalls, then what?
The level of detail Craig provides regarding his urinal approach will always be with you, no matter where you go in life. Sorry about that. More...
LC: Sat down.
DK: Okay. Did you do anything with your feet?
LC: Positioned them, I don't know. I don’t know at the time. I'm a fairly wide guy.
DK: I understand.
LC: I had to spread my legs.
DK: Okay.
LC: When I lower my pants so they won’t slide.DK: I know you’re not going to fight me. But that’s not the point. I would respect you and I still respect you. I don’t disrespect you but I’m disrespected right now and I’m not trying to act like I have all kinds of power or anything, but you’re sitting here lying to a police officer.
As you can see, things have gone badly. We've reached the point of struggle here, highlighted by the officer's assertion of authority combined with the standard demand for respect which translates to "stop lying to me."
LC: I, I, I.
DK: It’s not a (inaudible) I’m getting from somebody else. I’m (inaudible)
LC: (inaudible)
(Talking over each other)
DK: I am trained in this and I know what I am doing. And I say you put your hand under there and you’re going to sit there and…
LC: I admit I put my hand down.
DK: You put your hand and rubbed it on the bottom of the stall with your left hand.
LC: No. Wait a moment.
Bringing it home now...DK: I just, I just, I guess, I guess I’m gonna say I’m just disappointed in you sir. I’m just really am. I expect this from the guy that we get out of the hood. I mean, people vote for you.
Was Karsnial referring to the nation as a whole or his relationship to Craig - and interrogations are indeed a particular type of intimate relationship, with the potential for disappointment at every turn - when he said "no wonder we're going down the tubes?" Many television episodes end on such unresolved questions, as does this one. Cut to end credits. Fade to black.
LC: Yes, they do. (inaudible)
DK: unbelievable, unbelievable.
LC: I’m a respectable person and I don’t do these kinds of…
DK: And (inaudible) respect right now though
LC: But I didn’t use my left hand.
DK: I thought that you…
LC: I reached down with my right hand like this to pick up a piece of paper.
DK: Was your gold ring on your right hand at anytime today.
LC: Of course not, try to get it off, look at it.
DC: Okay. Then it was your left hand, I saw it with my own eyes.
LC: All right, you saw something that didn’t happen.
DK: Embarrassing, embarrassing. No wonder why we’re going down the tubes. Anything to add?
NN: Uh, no.
DK: Embarrassing. Date is 6/11/07 at 1236 interview is done.
LC: Okay.
Fascinating. Terribly familiar. And destined to inspire - unnecessarily, perhaps - an episode of Law & Order.
(Cross-posted.)
You saw this episode already
Craig Being Pushed to Resign by RNC
So, I'm reading about how the RNC is essentially pushing Larry Craig into a corner where he has to resign, and I have to say I'm just utterly disgusted by it—because this is the same RNC who sucks Bush's cock like there's Fountain of Youth Juice coming out of it, even though he once pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor DUI and his veep Cheney was convicted twice of drunk driving. And, ya know, that's just the relevant legal shit, which is to say nothing of the litany of fucktastrophes they've levied upon the nation and the global community. Fuck up an entire other country and let an American city drown? No problem. But plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of interference with privacy and the full weight of the GOP bears down on you like Zeus with an axe to grind.
Particularly considering that there are legitimate questions to be asked about Craig's arrest and the police policies which led to it, not to mention their indifference regarding Senator David Vitter's own private ongoing hookergate, the GOP's decision to go hardcore after Craig is rather stunning.
I totally second what Kevin Hayden says here:Let me state that I emphatically reject the puritanical squeamishness driving the calls for Craig’s resignation. I disagree with his legislative issue positions. His hypocrisy sucks. His denials don’t sound convincing. And public bathrooms lack the type of ambience I’d prefer for my own liaisons.
Or, one might suggest, a total lack of any recognizably consistent morality at all.
All that could lower his chances for re-election. Which could convince him not to run again. That’s okay; I consider that democracy, working as it should.
…I don’t believe minor misdemeanor violations should cause automatic disqualifications to public service in the Senate. If public censure convinces him not to run again, that’s his decision, ultimately. But the moral posturing by his Republican peers is itself more objectionable than anything Larry did. After all, we have a president that fucked our Constitution, lied about the intelligence, promoted torture and its twin, extraordinary rendition. And hundreds of thousands have died, needlessly.
That the same Senators disgusted by Larry’s leer find no moral objection to actions I consider crimes against humanity is an indicator of badly skewed morality.
UPDATE: Related (and recommended) reading from Tom Watson.
Memories!
As Mustang Bobby reports below, Tony Snow has decided to celebrate Karl Rove's last day on the job by resigning his post as White House Press Buffer, too. (Joining Snow, Rove, and Gonzo in leaving the White House since the November elections are White House Dan Bartlett, chief White House attorney Harriet Miers, budget director Rob Portman, political director Sara Taylor, and deputy national security advisers J.D. Crouch and Meghan O'Sullivan.)
I have lots of fond memories of ol' Snowjob, but this old chestnut is probably my favorite—Total Wanker: Tony Snow (or, as Space Cowboy calls it, Snow Chunks). Enjoy!
The Bush Cult in full effect:Tony Snow draped his lanky frame across a wooden lectern, leaned forward and gazed out at 850 adoring Republicans who had paid $175 apiece to hear him speak. There was a conspiratorial gleam in his eye, as if he was about to reveal some deep inner secret from his new life as the White House press secretary.
“Yesterday,” Mr. Snow declared, “I was in the Oval Office with the president ——”
He cut himself off, took a perfectly calibrated three-second pause and switched into an aw-shucks voice for dramatic effect: “I just looove saying that! Yeaaah, I was in the Oval Office. Just meeee and the president. Nooooobody else.” The crowd lapped it up.
That’s me, blowing chunks of Tony Snow.
Lap that up.
Snow Day
Tony Snow is leaving his White House Press Secretary job effective September 14.
According to MSNBC, President Bush will announce Snow's departure at 12:45pm ET.This isn't really big news; he's been hinting at it for a while. I suspect that considering the shit he has to shovel and the ass-covering he has to do for the Bush administration, there isn't enough money in the world to make the job worth it. Also, he's still battling cancer, and the job has to be taking a toll on that.
Snow will be replaced by White House Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino, who has occasionally done briefings for the President. He joins numerous other high-ranking Bush officials, including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove, leaving the Administration in recent weeks.
Snow battled cancer earlier this year and previously said he wanted to leave his post, citing the position's "low" pay.
I wish him good health and a long life, but I can't say I'm sorry to see him leave; he's got this smirk that makes you just want to smack him.
What Women Want
What Women Want is the title of a piece in today's Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal, authored by WSJ editorial board member Kimberley Strassel and subtitled "How the GOP can woo the ladies." It gets off to a banging start with its opening paragraph:
Hillary has herself. Barack has Oprah. John Edwards has his wife, Elizabeth. And what secret weapon do Republican presidential candidates have to curry the all-important "women's vote"?Right out of the box, I can tell I'm going love Ms. Strassel, given that she subscribes to one of my favorite theories of politics: Vagina Voting. That's the theory which proffers that Vagina-Americans (aka "Women") are politically attracted to the closest vagina. Hence, all women should want to vote for Hillary. And if Hillary weren't in the race, they'd want to vote for John Edwards, because of Elizabeth—and also because John Edwards, what with his hair fetish, is practically one big vagina himself.
I love this theory for lots of reasons, like how it presumes women don't have brains capable of mustering the tiniest reserve of political acumen, but most of all because it's rooted in the idea that "Women" is a monolithic group with a shared set of interests, preferences, ethics, needs, and desires. Now, I could write an entire post (or an entire six-volume set) on how manifestly stupid that idea truly is, but instead, I'll just let this graphic, comparing two women—politically active women, no less—suffice.
And even that doesn't begin to convey the depth of diversity among women, considering that Phyllis and I are from the same ethnic group, share the same sexual orientation, have the same regional roots, and are both living above the poverty line. In other words, we share a lot in common, too—and we're still vastly different. So much for Vagina Voting.
But Strassel's main issue is, of course, making recommendations for how the GOP can woo, as she calls them, "the lady voters." And she starts where any good Republican does—not with good GOP ideas but with trashing the Democrats.
The Democrats' own views of what counts for "women's issues" are stuck back in the disco days, about the time Ms. Clinton came of political age. Under the title "A Champion for Women," the New York senator's Web site promises the usual tired litany of "equal pay" and a "woman's right to choose." Mr. Richardson pitches a new government handout for women on "family leave" and waxes nostalgic for the Equal Rights Amendment. Give these Boomers some bell bottoms and "The Female Eunuch," and they'd feel right at home. Polls show Ms. Clinton today gets her best female support from women her age and up.In case you missed it, or the whiplash has momentarily stunned you, let me reiterate Strassel's concept for you: The Democrats are stuck in "the disco days" because they're still talking about equal pay and reproductive rights, which are "tired" issues, despite the fact that women still don't have equal pay and reproductive rights are constantly under attack from the party Strassel thinks should be able to woo Women. And those "tired" issues are all a bunch of pointless twaddle to "women who today both scramble after a child and hold a job," even though working mothers are the ones who would most benefit from equal pay, most make use of family leave where it's offered, and are the most likely to seek an abortion for financial reasons. Okay.
The rest of the female population has migrated into 2007. Undoubtedly quite a few do care about abortion rights and the Violence Against Women Act. But for the 60% of women who today both scramble after a child and hold a job, these culture-war touchpoints aren't their top voting priority.
Yeah, it's a real head-scratcher why the GOP is failing to win over the ladies.
But wait—there's more! Strassel explains how the GOP can make unequal pay a winning issue for them—even though it's "tired," I guess.
Here's an example of how a smart Republican could morph an old-fashioned Democratic talking point into a modern-day vote winner. Ms. Clinton likes to bang on about "inequality" in pay. The smart conservative would explain to a female audience that there indeed is inequality, and that the situation is grave. Only the bad guy isn't the male boss; it's the progressive tax code.Splendid idea! I can imagine that if a Republican candidate had the deeply feminist idea of pointing out to me that my second-class pay rate was inevitable, but he'd be willing to rework the tax code so that married women keep more of their shitty paychecks, I'd totally vote for him! I can't imagine anything appealing more to my sense of fairness than codifying into the tax law a way to mitigate institutionalized sexism for straight, married women so we never have to talk about that pesky unequal pay ever again. Phew!
Most married women are second-earners. That means their income is added to that of their husband's, and thus taxed at his highest marginal rate.
Anyway, after some more hott ideas, Strassel wraps it up with this sage advice:
And there are future generations of women voters to be won by the party that progresses beyond the stale rhetoric of women's "rights" and crafts a new language of women's "choice" and "opportunity" and "ownership."Indeed. Who cares about women's "rights" anyway, right? How stale. If I have to hear one more time that sad refrain about how I have a right to choice, so that I can make the most of my opportunities and since I have autonomous ownership of my own body and all, I'll totally pass out with boredom. What a snoozefest.
Oh. Wait.
I see. So ultimately Strassel is suggesting stealing the language of feminism and reappropriating it for the retrofuck anti-women policies of the rightwing. In order to win over the lady voters. Well, good luck with all that. At least you know you've got Phyllis' vote.
I wouldn't bank on her grandkids, though.
Another Great Iraq Visit!
Some senators got a nice farewell gift from Baghdad:
"Our plane leaving Iraq was fired upon, and it was a close call, but this is something that our men and women in combat face every day," Rep. Bud Cramer, D-Alabama, said in a statement. "The flight crew was outstanding, and I credit them for the way they handled the situation."No available comment from James Inhofe, who was crapping his pants while still curled in a fetal position.
Sens. Mel Martinez, R-Florida; Richard Shelby, R-Alabama; and James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, were also on the flight.
Can Buy Me Love
Shaker Aly sent me a link to this Sara Evans video for her song As If, which is not, as it turns out, about a valley girl sniffing derisively at someone ("As if!") but about a presumably adult woman who's "acting as if this blue sky's never gonna rain down on me" while begging her boyfriend to keep his thoughts to himself; "don't show me that you're someone else." Charming.
Anyway, the video is actually even worse:
For those who can't view the video, Aly explains: "The basic gist of the song is that Sara goes into a store and sees different 'models' of men. She buys one after another, always returning them, and the only thing that they're good for is cleaning/sex. I thought it was pretty derogatory towards both men and women, saying that the only thing a man is good for is cleaning/sex, and that the only thing a woman wants in a man is someone who cleans/sex. Because a personality is so last season." Heh.
As I've said once or twice or a thousand times before, sexism is nearly always insulting to both men and women, as it (at minimum) stereotypes one sex while making a rather nasty commentary about the others' preferences. This video is a perfect example of that. (And any possibility that the video was an ironic play on sexist swill like that Heineken ad is immediately undermined by the dreadful lyrics about ignoring men's flaws in favor of a false happiness.)
However, what I find particularly interesting about this video is the commoditization of partnership and love. Here, not only are men a commodity, but each archetype is its own brand, and people are to be consumed like iPhones or DVDs—and you simply need buy a product to take home, rather than choosing a person with whom to build a home.
That narrative is particularly intriguing because of its relationship to:
1. Undermining the sanctity of marriage: The theme of purchasing a partner is obviously antithetical to everything for which the Family Values crowd purports to stand. But despite the increasing regularity with which we see images of commodified love and/or partnership, nary a raised voice can be heard. Perhaps if Ms. Evans were looking to purchase a galpal, there'd be a murmur…
2. Consumption vs. citizenship: As we just discussed Wednesday (and many times before), the notion of national sacrifice has been obliterated by the nation of national shopping. Our primary responsibility is no longer to be good citizens, but to be good consumers. So while you're out buying tons o' crap to help save the world, why not get yourself a little something, like a husband?
Bleh. From just about every conceivable angle.
Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Legal in Iowa!
Wow—this was unexpected on a sleepy Friday morning:
A Polk County judge on Thursday struck down Iowa's law banning gay marriage.That is so fucking cool.
The ruling by Judge Robert Hanson concluded that the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and he ordered the Polk County recorder to issue marriage licenses to six gay couples.
"This is kind of the American Dream," said plaintiff Jen BarbouRoske, of Iowa City. "I'm still feeling kind of shaky. It's pure elation, I just cannot believe it."
Des Moines lawyer Dennis Johnson represented the six gay couples who filed suit after they were denied marriage licenses. He … called the Defense of Marriage law "mean spirited" and said it was designed only to prohibit gays from marrying. He said it violates t he state constitution's equal protection and due-process clauses.And the judge agreed, saying that the state law banning same-sex marriage violates the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection, then ordered that it be "must be nullified, severed and stricken from the books" to make way for same-sex civil marriage. Awesomeness.
Naturally, there are already people lining up to piss all over the parade.
Polk County is expected to appeal the ruling to the Iowa S upreme Court. County Attorney John Sarcone said the county would immediately seek a stay from Hanson, which if granted would prevent anyone from seeking a marriage license until an appeal could be heard.Blah blah blah. The fact that it is happening in Iowa should be evidence to every last soul across the land that this is a battle they will lose. Same-sex couples who want and deserve to be married—and share all the rights conferred by marriage—live in every corner of the nation, and it's going to come to Iowa, and Indiana, and Illinois, and everywhere else. And eventually, we're going to win.
…Rachel Cunningham, a spokeswoman for the conservative Iowa Family Policy Center, which opposes gay marriage, said the decision will be appealed. "We're very disappointed and will pursue to the next level of courts," she said.
…State Sen. Ron Wieck, R-Sioux City, said he was surprised by the ruling and promised the Legislature would take another look at the issue. "We'll look at something we can do legislatively," Wieck said.
House Minority Leader Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City, said the judge's ruling only illustrates the need for a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. "I can't believe this is happening in Iowa," he said. "I guarantee you there will a vote on this issue come January."
The timing of this decision undoubtedly means that same-sex marriage will probably be an issue during the very big and very important Iowa primary. Could get interesting.
Question of the Day
You've been hired by HBO to develop your own half-hour comedy show. It can be a traditional sitcom (Curb Your Enthusiasm), a nontraditional sitcom (Flight of the Conchords), a mockumentary (The Office), a skit show, fake newscast, whatever you like, just so long as it's a half-hour long, funny, and original. Also, because it's HBO, you don't have to worry about those pesky humor-hammering network censors.
So: What's your concept?
Today in Dumbassery
School dress code says: Students must wear khakis and plain polo shirts. Shirts may not have any logos or slogans.
Critically-thinking challenged fundies say: The school hates Jesus! I'm being persecuted! Change your rules for my whims!
From the great state of Indiana...
The mother of a student who was suspended for violating her school system's dress code says the rules unfairly target religion, WRTV in Indianapolis reported.Obvious fact #1: The dress code has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with graphic t-shirts with logos and slogans. Just because you, Ms. Brown, want to wear a t-shirt with some 'clever' graphic that has a religious bent does not, in fact, mean that the dress code is out to persecute you because you love da Jesus.
Tracy Prochnow said Highland High School in Indiana suspended her daughter, Brittany Brown, on Monday because the junior wore a Christian-themed T-shirt.
Monday was the fourth time Brittany violated the code, which the city's school board implemented this year and requires students to wear khakis and polo shirts.
Prochnow said the school may be violating her daughter's rights, and she has asked the school board to change the code.
[...]
"The school is basically saying I can't wear a shirt that talks about Jesus or Christ or God or any religious type of T-shirt because we have to wear a polo," Brittany said.
Obvious fact #2: Ms. Brown deserved suspension because she willfully violated the dress code four times (...and just how long has school been in session?!). Still nothing to do with religion.
Obvious fact #3: The school districts and households that produced both Ms. Prochnow and Ms. Brown above failed miserably at encouraging the development of critical thinking skills.
Pat Buchanan's Compulsions
Pat Buchanan goes for the long bomb in this defense of Larry Craig's biffy tryst.
He is basically saying that gays -- all gays -- are powerless to control their sexual urges and therefore Larry Craig is blameless: he can't help himself. He's just like an alcoholic who is powerless to control his urge to drink.
Okay, where to start? First, I don't think Pat Buchanan is gay, so assuming for the sake of argument that his compulsion theory holds water, he isn't in a position to know what homosexual urges are like. (And please, FSM, I don't want to know if he does.) Second, I don't think Mr. Buchanan is an alcoholic, so he can't speak from experience on knowing what it's like to be powerless to control the urge to drink. (He may not be an alcoholic, but he has definitely ingested something that has damaged his programming.) So he's talking out of his ass and making wild assumptions about things he knows nothing about. In other words, just another day at the office for Pat Buchanan.
It may seem pointless to argue with him, but just for grins, let's start with the claim that Larry Craig is the victim of a sexual compulsion and that in spite of his views on gay marriage, gay rights, gays in the military, and so on, he can't control his urge to get it on with strangers in a tea room. Mr. Buchanan seems to think that that is strictly a gay thing. I don't know where he gets his information, but sexual compulsions aren't just limited to gay men. Lots of straight people have shown this kind of behavior; it was even suggested by the right wing -- and probably Mr. Buchanan -- that President Bill Clinton suffered from the same disorder when he was hooking up with Monica Lewinsky, and I'm pretty sure that Bill Clinton is straight. So saying that Larry Craig's sexual compulsion is unique to Teh Gay ignores the fact that a lot of sex addicts -- be they a former president or not -- are not gay.
Making the link between alcoholism and homosexuality is just plain nuts. Yes, alcoholism is a disease. I know that from close personal experience. But I also know that there are millions of people who drink and live a life without wondering when they're going to have another drink. There are millions of gay men and lesbians who lead perfectly normal sex lives and to whom the idea of picking up a stranger in a public place for a sexual encounter is repulsive, including me, and for Pat Buchanan to assume that we all hang out in airport restrooms looking for Mr. Right-Now is pathetic.
This outburst from Mr. Buchanan shows yet again that the right wing is obsessed not just with sex, but with gay sex. They can't get beyond the image of two people of the same sex being intimate, and they can't accept the idea that the gay sex life can be just as normal, fulfilling, or as thrilling as straight sex. (At least that's what I've been told.) But this wingnut adolescent fascination with other people's sex lives is almost like a compulsion: they go along day to day, living their normal white-bread picket-fence middle class Republican lives, then suddenly they're overtaken by this overwhelming urge to spout off anti-gay rhetoric that comes out as foaming gibberish. It's like he can't control it.
So instead of blaming him for being a flaming asshole, we should be compassionate. To paraphrase the immortal Ann Richards, the late governor of Texas: "Poor Pat. He can't help it. He was born with a fascist foot in his mouth."
Let's just hope that's the only odd thing he's had in his mouth.
(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof. HT to Petulant via Melissa for the YouTube link.)
GOP Scare Tactic #247: Gas Prices
[Graphic by Liss.]
Two Democrats and a Republican walk into
Enter the Republican from the trip, Rep. Jon Porter (NV). See, Jon knows that support for this war is all but in the shitter. So, instead of going strictly with the "we're making a lot of progress" meme, he tries to go for the American jugular: The wallet.
"To a person, they said there would be genocide, gas prices in the U.S. would rise to eight or nine dollars a gallon, al-Qaida would continue its expansion, and Iran would take over that portion of the world if we leave," Porter said Wednesday in a phone interview from Las Vegas.Some great stuff there, don't you think? Let's see what kind of backup he has for that piece of info he was told:
Porter did not elaborate on the assessment that gasoline prices could spike. His spokesman, Matt Leffingwell, said afterward that the scenario "makes sense if Iran moves into Iraq."Of course he can't elaborate or speculate on the assessment. He has no idea what he's talking about, so he just does as he's told. (Who's a good boy?) So, rather than question a blanket statement about gas prices increasing exponentially due to troop withdrawal, he shouts it, unashamedly, from the mountain top in the hope that everyone's knee-jerk reaction to cost of living would achieve the desired result.
Porter "can't speculate directly on what is going to happen with gas prices, but the market prices for oil reflect the stability in that region," Leffingwell said.
Well, I got news for you fear mongering bitchez: Pavlov's left the building. Just admit defeat on this and cut the shit already.
[H/T to ThinkProgress]
New Government Seal
Mama Shakes just passed this on to me via email:
OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT:
The government today announced that it is changing
its emblem from an eagle to a condom because it more
accurately reflects the government's political stance,
as a condom allows for inflation, halts production,
destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of
pricks, and gives you a sense of security while
you're actually being screwed!
Plus, we all know that the Bush administration doesn't believe in pulling out.
Pop Quiz
You're the guest booker for The Today Show. Matt Lauer strides manfully toward you rubbing his own shorn head for good luck and informs you that he plans to do a piece on all the GOP Scandalz and he wants an expert commentator to interview.
Do you book:
A. a political ethics expert, who would actually have something valuable to say?
B. a steaming heap of turds, which would sit there looking gross and stinking?
C. Tom DeLay, who would babble endlessly about the Democrats and the media?
That'd be C.
The official transcript hasn't been posted yet, so here's my rough transcript:LAUER: Blah blah Republican Scandal-a-thon 2007 blah blah.
Approximately.
DELAY: Democrats!!! SCREEEEEECH! The media!!! SQUAWWWWWK! Double-standard! BLARRRGGGHHH!
Why oh fucking why is Tom DeLay even still around?! Why does (or should) anyone care what he says?! God, I hate our media.
[Video thanks, of course, to Petulant.]
The Democratic Party Has No Room for "Conservative Democrats" Right Now
Not if "conservative" means supportive of Bush's terror policies, and especially not if it means supportive of Bush's terror policies because keeping their jobs is more important than doing their jobs.
Reid and Pelosi promised last week that they would at least confront the president next month over his wiretapping program, with Pelosi taking an uncompromising stand in a private conference call with House Democrats. When lawmakers return in September, Democrats will also push legislation to restore habeas corpus rights for terrorism suspects and may resume an effort to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.A real "distaste." Yeah, nothing leaves a bad taste in the mouth quite like the leader of a democratic nation who behaves like a bloody dictator.
But conservative Democrats and some party leaders continue to worry that taking on those issues would expose them to Republican charges that they are weak on terrorism.
…"The most controversial matters are the ones that people use to form their opinions on their members of Congress," said Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.), who voted for the administration's bill. "I do know within our caucus, and justifiably so, there are members who have a real distaste for some of the things the president has done. But to let that be the driving force for our actions to block the surveillance of someone and perhaps stop another attack like 9/11 would be unwise."
And, seriously, Davis should be kicked out of the party just for parroting the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" horseshit that the Democrats who want to take on Bush's policies are only doing so because they dislike Bush and, if they have their way, we'll have "another 9/11." It's like Davis' staffers are briefing him with excepts from Michelle Malkin's website.
The worst part of it is his temerity to suggest that the Democrats who want to restore the rule of law, even for—gasp!—suspected terrorists (emphasis on suspected), are doing so because they have no principles. They're just motivated by having "a real distaste for some of the things the president has done," you see, unlike the principled "conservative Democrats," who vote with the administration lest they be branded as "weak on terror" and lose their pretty jobs.
If they were even half as concerned about retaining their integrity as they were about retaining their jobs, the rest of the Democrats might not be "angry that they cannot defeat even a weakened president on issues that they believe should be front and center."
Hilzoy has more.
More Tucker
Here's the video (via Terrance) of Tucker Carlson's claim to have assaulted a guy who hit on him in a bathroom, about which Mustang Bobby posted below. Check out how hilarious Joe Scarborough and Dan Abrams think it is when he says he bashed the guy (toward the end of the video):
[Transcript here.]
Now, as Mustang Bobby notes, his story changed once it was pointed out he essentially admitted being a gay-basher, and he now claims to have been "[fighting] back against an unsolicited sexual attack." (As opposed to a solicited sexual attack?!) But that's certainly not what he conveys in the video (nor that he and his friend merely "seized the man and held him until a security guard arrived").
As I noted in the comments of MB's post, either the man was hitting on him, or the man was trying to sexually assault him. The two are not easily confused, not when you're dealing with a total stranger who approaches you out of nowhere.
If the man was just hitting on him, then Carlson's attack on him was a straight-up case of gay-bashing.
If the man was trying to sexually assault him, then Carlson's bringing it up when discussing a case of a gay man who clearly wasn't trying to sexually assault someone is inappropriate and deeply irresponsible—and is a smear against gay men just as surely as if he'd erroneously brought up pedophilia.
Either way, it's completely unacceptable.
Tucker Carlson Is SO Butch
Tucker Carlson, the poor man's George F. Will, claims that he assaulted a guy who tried to cruise him in a public restroom in Washington D.C.
On the August 28 edition of MSBNC Live, hosted by MSNBC general manager Dan Abrams, Tucker Carlson, host of MSNBC's Tucker, asserted, "Having sex in a public men's room is outrageous. It's also really common. I've been bothered in men's rooms." Carlson continued, "I've been bothered in Georgetown Park," in Washington, D.C., "when I was in high school." When Abrams asked how Carlson responded to being "bothered," Carlson asserted, "I went back with someone I knew and grabbed the guy by the -- you know, and grabbed him, and ... hit him against the stall with his head, actually."A couple of points to note here. First, if this is true, Mr. Carlson is admitting to aggravated assault. Second, Mr. Carlson went to high school at St. George's School in Newport, Rhode Island, Class of 1987. St. George's, as you know from my own postings, is a boarding school, also the alma mater of Howard Dean, Class of 1966, and -- for one year -- yours truly, Class of 1971. I don't know what SG was like in the late 1980's, but when I was there and it was an all-boys school, well... let's just say that boys will do boys. (Alas, I was a late bloomer. I waited until college.) So his over-reaction then and his boisterous locker-room bragging now seem a tad forced.
Mr. Carlson's rather frenzied attempt to show how tough he is with people hitting on him reminds me of what the immortal Bard once said: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." People who overreact to being hit on make me wonder what they're worried about. People who are secure in their sexual orientation would shrug such a thing off, and I know a few straight guys who would take it as a compliment -- "Nice to know I've still got it."
I know Mr. Carlson is married with children. (So are a lot of the guys on gay dating sites -- you can tell them by the ads that say "Discreet/No Strings.") And frankly, I sincerely hope that Mr. Carlson is straight because, like Senator Larry Craig, I wouldn't want an uptight bully like him in our club. We have enough bitchy queens in the ranks as it is.
Now Mr. Carlson has come out (oops, sorry) with an update to his story and the eyebrows it raised.
Let me be clear about an incident I referred to on MSNBC last night: In the mid-1980s, while I was a high school student, a man physically grabbed me in a men's room in Washington, DC. I yelled, pulled away from him and ran out of the room. Twenty-five minutes later, a friend of mine and I returned to the men's room. The man was still there, presumably waiting to do to someone else what he had done to me. My friend and I seized the man and held him until a security guard arrived.Ah, now he says he was physically assaulted. That's different than being "bothered." And now he says he and a friend "seized" him and waited for the security guard.
Several bloggers have characterized this is a sort of gay bashing. That's absurd, and an insult to anybody who has fought back against an unsolicited sexual attack. I wasn't angry with the man because he was gay. I was angry because he assaulted me.
Sounds like someone needs to get their story straight. So to speak.
Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.
