Reppe.com

Oh, Hillary.

Political hypocrisy knows no party affiliations.

Hillary Clinton has just released a 1600 word letter to constituents jumping on the Bash Bush Bandwagon over the intelligence in the ramp up to the war. I'm all for the bashing. But Hillary, who in 2002 supported and in 2003 re-asserted her support for the war, is conveniently ignoring that her support for the Iraq invasion was based not just on the questionable presentation of evidence to Congress but on intelligence that she apparently was privy to during her husband's administration...which begs the question of what exactly her Cabinet position was that she was privy to said intelligence. Without her strong and repeated assertations that her support for the war was based not just on the Bush Administration intelligence but on the intelliegence of the entire previous decade as well, she could get away with her new "Holy Shit He Lied To Us" stance.

As it is, she doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Sigh.

Pretty please could we stop talking about her for 2008? Puh-leeeze?

I do not oppose HIllary for President because she is female. I oppose her for two reasons:

1.) Regardless of her merits or lack thereof she is a lightning rod for right wing and moderate criticism. It doesn't matter if it's fair or right (okay...it matters but it that won't win an election). What matters is that given the current disillusionment with the President and Congress the Democrats have a viable opportunity to take back the White House in 2008. To run anyone for the Presidency who will allow moderate Republicans to focus on how much they dislike the Democrat nominee instead of how unhappy they are with the direction of their party is an absolutely ridiculous tactical error. As someone who views the Democrats, and I am a Democrat, as too stupid to win, this would be par for the course.

2.) Hillary strikes me as a slightly more personable version of Gray Davis, the deposed California Governor. I cannot figure out what she believes in on any issue other than she appears to believe quite strongly that she should be in charge. This is not a good trait for a President. For those unsure as to why this would be a bad thing in a President, see also: Bush, George W.

Props to the boys at Naked Zoo for jumping on this.

Bill O'Reilly Really Pissed Off at Radical Secularist Christmas Hater...Bill O'Reilly

Radical Secularist Christmas Hater Bill O'Reilly is at it again.

Just Proving his long suspected liberal agenda, Mr. O'Reilly shows once and for all that he hates Christmas. A Holiday Ornament? For a Holiday Tree? Damn you, you gay French commie liberal bastard! Damn you all to hell!

Fortunately, True Hetorsexually American Bill O'Reilly won't stand for such shenanigans. Continuing his aggressive exposing of the War On Christmas, Bill O'Reilly, having the courage to stand up against radical secularist liberals like Bill O'Reilly demands that his fans boycott Bill O'Reilly...well, okay he didn't say that specifically but he did say that "Americans should not patronize any business that uses Holiday instead of Christmas."

Boycott Bill O'Reilly. For Christmas, For God. For America

Update: okay, this is less fun since Fox changed their page but goddamn it was a good time while it lasted. By this time tomorrow I'm sure O'Reilly will be denying that the page ever said Holiday anything and that it's all part of the grand left wing conspiracy and that the screen caps were doctored.

The Wall Street Journal Nails It

Gotta give Slate a big shout out for bringing this up.

From the WSJ editorial page...

Washington has become ethically loose because it has become so politically flabby. The incumbency rate in the House is now 99%. Real politics, unlike Washington's, includes real competition for an institution's seats of power. It includes accountability, so that challengers can criticize their opponent's votes. The current Washington system is designed to minimize these forces. No corporation or any other private institution could remain vibrant or viable for long without competition or accountability. Congress can't either.

Amen, WSJ. You drilled it.

Sadly this editorial did not come out in 2005. Or 2004. Or the 21st century. It was written April 18, 1989 in response to the scandal involving Jim Wright, the former Speaker of the House. Wright ended up having to resign for cutting a sweetheart deal with a publisher that netted him $55k. In light of the current Scandal Fevah ripping through DC...that would be Republican Duke Cunningham admitting this week to accepting $2.4 million in bribes; Tom Delay; Republican lobbyist Jack Abramhoff; Republican operative David Safavian.

And I don't want to hear any crap about how it's bipartisan. The Dems got Bill Jefferson. That's about it. Come on, y'all...what pinhead would try to buy influence by buying off a member of a party that is in the minority in both houses? Especially given the Rove K-Street strategy (this is not a conspiracy theory, Rove and Norquist brag about it) to ace Dem lobbyists out of the most influential firms in DC.

You can apply that 1989 editorial to today's political climate. Interestingly, the WSJ was all for the Texas gerrymandering that yielded seven additional safe seats for Republicans in 2004. Given that the same editorial is equally applicable today regarding the lack of competition due to incumbency, with the only change being the party in power, I am looking forward to seeing the Wall Street Journal opinion pages sizzle with the same kind of editorial fire on the topic.

Unless they're just full of shit or something.

Whiplash!

Rick Santorum (R-PA), who only a year ago was one of the President's most dedicated attack poodles, has just executed a stunning 180 degree turn.

In 2003 Santorum, the 3rd most powerful member of the US Senate, wrote an editorial for the Washington Times touting intelligent design as "a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in the classroom". Now, as the campaign against him for the 2006 election picks up steam and given the brutal reversal of fortune by the Dover, PA school board members who advocated intelligent design, our boy Rick has come out against teaching intelligent design in the classroom. "I have some problems with the theory", he says. Didn't just a couple of years ago but it speaks well of Mr. Santorum that he has spent the last 24 months in monastic contemplation and has re-evaluated his position as a result.

Hmm...seems Mr. Santorum has figured out that his base, while loud and aggressive as hell, is not all that big and that the President and Congressional Republicans might have overreached a bit post-election and now have to backpedal like hell.

But it does raise a pertinent question: Does Rick Santorum, as a human being not as a Senator facing a tough re-election fight, believe in evolution or intelligent design or neither? His current turnaround is, to me, a transparent attempt to capture more mainstream voters as he sniffs the political winds. You can certainly make a case that his 2003 stance was simply playing to the base and showing them he's a good guy...one of them.

Flip-flopper.

Hypocrisy Alert: Don Sherwood

Don Sherwood (R.-PA) settled a $5.5 million lawsuit two days ago with his mistress of five years. She is 29. He is in his 60's. Mr. Sherwood has been married for longer than his mistress has been alive and has 3 daughters, all close in age to the young lady in question. The affair came to light a year ago when his love-twinkie barricaded herself in the bathroom of his DC dwelling and called police claiming that he choked her. He claimed he'd been giving her a backrub. Musta been one helluva backrub. He originally referred to reports of this incident as "a political smear". A political smear is when someone accuses you of something you didn't do. When two cops show up at your pad and find you in a bathrobe and 29 year old hottie naked and locked in the bathroom it is no longer a "smear". It is, instead, a "really bad day" if you are a married 60 year old congressman who stumps on family values issues.

Mr. Sherwood is consistently given high marks by Focus on the Family for his strong voting records on issues having to do with family values. Apparently, as long as you vote the right way it's not particularly important to actually have any family values.

Though he rather classily avoided making the Clinton-Lewinsky affair an issue in his first campaign (1998), his language has become more stridently FoxNews-like in the intervening years. Among other things, he supports the ban on gay marriage because it's such a damnable threat to marriage. Unlike fucking around on your wife for five years.

I'm not taking the moral high ground, here. The difference is I don't tout family values and use them to get elected while engaging in behavior perfectly opposed to said values.

Don Sherwood, Republican Congressman from Pennsyvania. Today's BIG DAMN HYPOCRITE award winner.

Honorable mention goes to Kevin Brady, another Republican. Mr. Brady represents the fine state of Texas. He was busted in South Dakota, from whence he hails, for drunk driving with a blood alcohol level somewhere just short of "Jim Beam straight-up". Mr. Brady, a longtime proponent of mandatory sentences (on damn near everything, including drunk driving) got off with a $350 fine. He is terribly contrite.