I wanted to pull my hair out after reading Cal Thomas’ op-ed in the Express-News the other day. Thomas (no relation, thank God) is an insufferable high priest of the religous right and is always scolding Democrats and liberals for being tolerant of immorality.
Here he is talking about the Clinton impeachment mess back in 1998:
Democrats are in danger of becoming known as the party of adultery, kinky sex and moral relativity. Instead of cutting their losses and rebuilding their party on a foundation of integrity, Democrats risk going down with the ship and suffering titanic losses because of a debauched captain. It may take them a generation to recoup.
Now fastforward to 2007 and we see Thomas addressing the possibility
that Republican evangelicals may throw their support behind serial adulterers like Rudy Guiliani and Newt Gingrich.
That substantial numbers of conservative evangelical voters are even considering these candidates as presidential prospects is a sign of their political maturation and of their more pragmatic view of what can be expected from politics and politicians. It is also evidence that many of them are awakening to at least two other realities -- (1) they are not electing a church deacon; and (2) government has limited power to rebuild a crumbling social construct.
So when Democrats were willing to support President Clinton in spite of his adultery in 1998, we were the “Party of Adultery” and were sure to suffer “titanic losses because of a debauched captain.”
But when Republicans are preparing to support their own debauched captain just a few years later, it is a “sign of their political maturation.”
The depth of the far right’s hypocricy is just mind-boggling.
Labels: Religious Right
Some of my friends are adamant that we should impeach President Bush for a multitude of reasons. While I am sympathetic to most if not all of their reasoning for this from an emotional standpoint, I have to object on the simple grounds of practicality.
Right now, President Bush is extremely unpopular across the country with approval ratings stuck in the low-30s. The NYTimes just had a story the other day about the disarray in the Republican Party over this dilemma and what it will likely mean for their 2008 presidetial hopes (not good).
So, just as a matter of practicality, why would Democrats want to impeach Bush and have him replaced by someone who would come in with a clean slate (assuming we don’t end up with Cheney which would be even worse) and the chance to rebuild GOP fortunes in time for the 2008 election? Why would we want to remove this albatross from around their neck?
There was a Senate election a number of years ago, and I can’t recall which one offhand, but the Republican frontrunner was suddenly hit with a sex scandal in the midst of the campaign and his numbers fell dramatically. Suddenly, the Democrats had a great shot at a seat where they otherwise would have been uncompetitive. But then the worst possible thing happened. The Republican candidate quit. The next thing you knew he was replaced with some no-name guy who didn’t have all the negative baggage. The Democrats faltered and the GOP held onto the seat. Needless to say, I was very disappointed.
If someone can make the case that having Bush remain in office for the remainder of his term is so detrimental to the country - even after being neutered by the Democratic takeover of Congress - that it is worth the risk of losing the 2008 presidential election, then I’d like to hear it.
If we were to go forward with an impeachment campaign it would have the immediate effect of polarizing the country and this could only bolster Bush’s support by making him a more sympathetic figure. It would take the attention away from the things Democrats need to be concentrating on and make them seem no better than the Republicans who impeached Clinton. And furthermore, it would probably have the same end result - i.e. a hard-fought conviction in the House followed by an acquittal from the closely divided Senate where the Republicans would remain in lockstep and a few Liebermanesque Democrats would cross over to be the deciding votes.
Labels: Bush administration
This is getting a bit ridiculous. Now we are supposed to believe that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
is responsible for personally beheading Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, in addition to plotting every single terrorist plot carried out or concieved during the past dozen years?
Perhaps this snarky post at Eschaton
is not so far off afterall.
Now if we can just get him to confess that Osama bin Laden is really just his alter-ego - and show us the Osama Halloween mask he has been using all these years - then we can declare victory in the War on Terror and send everyone home.
I'm embarrassed that Alberto Gonzalez is from Texas!
What a huge disappoint he has been as attorney general. And I thought that John Ashcroft was bad!
Gonzalez has been the ultimate toady for this administration and now it turns out that he can't even do that without screwing things up.
Labels: Bush administration
Halliburton, the oil conglomerate once run by Dick Cheney, is moving its headquarters from Houston to Dubai.
Inquiring minds would like to know if this has something to do with dodging taxes and/or subpoenas.
Fortunately, Congressman Henry Waxman is on top of things. As is Sen. Patrick Leahy
and congressional hearings will soon follow.
If the law is such that a company like Halliburton can actually avoid taxes by moving its headquarters out of the U.S. and relocating to a foreign country, that is one outrage I hope this Democratic Congress will address. It is the corporate equivalent of burning the flag and spitting in our soldiers’ faces. Let’s see some legislation to address this and then let the Republicans filibuster it or Bush veto it. But put them on record defending this kind of corporate malfeasance.