Tuesday

At least his voice is less dweebish than Paul R. Nelson’s

Buried in a nice piece about presidential wannabe Evan Bayh and what he's doing in Indiana, was a note about a nasty campaign ad being run in the Hoosier State's 8th District.


A [incumbent Republican John] Hostettler radio spot that warns that, if elected, [Brad] Ellsworth will vote for "San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi ... who will then put in motion her radical plan to advance the homosexual agenda led by Barney Frank, reprimanded by the House after paying for sex with a man who ran a gay brothel out of Congressman Frank's home."


How did I miss this one? It has all the trademarks of great/awful marketing to which I gravitate. Who can't get behind homophobic, dyslexic and geographically confused logic like that…especially when it's being read in the worst Clint Eastwood impersonation I've ever heard? But hey, Hoss, thanks for letting me hear the ad for myself.

Happy Halloween

C'mon, I can't be the only one who showed up to work this morning in a navy blue suit with a copy of Tiger Beat in one hand, 8 ounces of Jergens in the other, and a name tag that says Congressman Mark Foley maf54…can I? And why the weird looks that I brought my nephew to the office today?

Seven Heaven?

We are one week away. Things are looking good. The Interloper continues to make an ass of himself. Why can't I be optimistic?


Perhaps it's alarmingly naïve logic like this:


If the election were held today, and if the latest polls turned out to be accurate predictors of the outcome -- and let's be clear here, it's too early to start assuming either of those things -- Democrats would hold on to seats in Maryland and New Jersey and pick up seats in Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Montana, Ohio and Virginia. If Democrats pick up either Missouri or Tennessee, they take the Senate. If they don't, Dick Cheney spends the next two years breaking 50-50 ties in favor of the GOP.


But here's the thing – that's not exactly true. Cheney's vote means that 50/50 split is still a Republican majority, at least until after the 2008 elections (and likely after those elections as well). And what about Joe Lieberman – why are we counting the Independent candidate in the "Democrat" column? Oh sure, he'll be receptive to some core liberal ideals, but don't you think he'll be the least bit bitter that he lost the financial support of the party that nominated him as its #2 guy six years ago?


If Democrats pick up either Missouri or Tennessee, they will indeed have taken the Senate 50-49-1 (Lieberman's independent vote would be as meaningless as Cheney's tie-breaker). And aren't we putting the cart before the horse a bit in Virginia? Let's not overreact to one poll, which may or may not have been unfairly skewed by the days of the week in which information was collected (although I'd love to ask national GOP consultant Christopher J. LaCivita, how or why "everybody knows surveys conducted Fridays and Saturdays…are skewed toward Democrats.").


The House still looks like a safer bet, although some of the left's most respected voices still have their doubts about that as well.

Monday

The Interloper does The Google

Did you hear about what our Commander in Chief does when he's on "the internets"?


"One of the things I've used on the Google is to pull up maps. It's very interesting to see that. I forgot the name of the program, but you get the satellite and you can -- like, I kind of like to look at the ranch on Google, reminds me of where I want to be sometimes. Yeah, I do it some."


Too bad he didn't use the Google to look for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I wonder if he'll explore the Google and discover that nobody likes him.


Should the American President really be as technologically retarded as my late grandmother, who often asked if I used a computer to talk to friends "on the intercom"?


Just thought I'd be the 438th to poke fun.

Friday

What Dreams May Come

Despite the [Ro]villains equation of a vote for Democrats to a vote for al Qaeda, it seems there is a very real possibility that Republicans may lose their majority in the House and perhaps even the Senate. But what would the Dems do with such power?


I read two interesting pieces this week that explore that very question. Both Newsweek and TNR agree that despite "the party's frothing liberal base", Democrats would not use majority power and committee chairmanship to "turn the Capitol into a courthouse" with Republicans standing trial. Why not, you ask? Two words: Newt Gingrich.


In 1994, after capturing a congressional majority for the first time in decades, Speaker Gingrich embarked on a comprehensive agenda that would prove to be a constant thorn in Democrats' (and specifically, President Clinton's) side. How did that turn out again?


Republicans throughout Congress pushed anti-Clinton charges flimsy enough to embarrass a Soviet-bloc secret police agent. In the Senate, Al D'Amato conducted dozens of Whitewater hearings that flopped badly and contributed to his 1998 defeat by Chuck Schumer.


Most memorable, however, was the famously unhinged chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, Indiana Republican Dan Burton. During his tenure, Burton issued more than 1,000 subpoenas to 141 different Clintonites. His inquiries included ten days of hearings on whether the White House used its Christmas card list for political purposes. In one case, Burton's investigators managed to subpoena the wrong man. His low point came in 1998, when Burton released misleadingly edited transcripts of secretly recorded phone conversations conducted in prison by former Clinton associate Webb Hubbell. Burton apologized, and his notorious lead investigator, David Bossie, resigned; but, by then, fellow Republicans were furious over the damage Burton had done to his own party. "There were a lot of self-inflicted wounds," one Republican fumed to The Washington Post .


OK, so Newt and friends wrote the "what not to do" playbook, but without the numbers to override executive veto power, what else could a Democratic majority do?


The Dems' likely choice as Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, "is concerned that too many flying subpoenas would make her party appear petty and revenge-hungry, obsessed with blaming Bush". Would-be House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman, 26-term Michigander John Dingell, seems to be on board – promoting an agenda that "targets policies, not people". And the discipline preached by these two senior leaders seems to be sinking in across the caucus.


Several months ago, Michigan Democrat John Conyers, who is set to take over the House Judiciary Committee, was publicly musing about the possibility of Bush's impeachment. But Nancy Pelosi clamped down on such talk, and, for the most part, Conyers seems to have abandoned any such ambitions.


Alright, you're saying. You've hit me over the head with what Democrats won't do. I get it – they learned from Republican mistakes. But enough already...what WILL they do?


Fair enough. How about this:


Pelosi's true focus for the next two years will be to position the Democrats for the 2008 presidential race.


The idea is to bring popular bills that the GOP has opposed to the floor of the House—a minimum-wage hike, prescription-drug reform—and dare Republicans to vote against them. It's part of a larger package the Dems are billing as Six for '06, their version of the "Contract with America," which the GOP used to win in '94. Democrats plan to enact the 9/11 Commission recommendations and screen all containers at U.S. ports, put more money into counter-terror operations and increase benefits for veterans. At home, they say they'll vote for tax deductions for college tuition and cut student-loan rates while raising taxes on big oil companies and corporations that move overseas. They say they'll also put a popular stem-cell-research bill up for a vote.


Now then, that all seems reasonable and (dare I go there?) fair and balanced. And yet The Interloper insists that a "wild Democratic majority" would be a "ghastly thing" for the country.


But that's the answer right there, isn't it? The truth is that wild Republican legislative and executive control have produced countless "ghastly things" already – "ghastly things" that will (pretty, pretty please) force the long overdue end of the 1994's conservative revolution. If Dubya's interpretation of "ghastly" means common sense solutions to domestic issues and original thought put to resolving international clusterfucks, sign me up…and keep your fingers crossed.

Thursday

Nasty campaign ads that don’t involve the study of bisexual, transgendered and two-spirited Aleutian Eskimos

It's amazing how the threat of losing power brings out the worst in someone; in the case of the Republican Congressional majority, that's really saying something. As a favor for those who love nasty politics or simply like to laugh, TNR has compiled the seven most egregious immigration ads from around the county (Paul R. Nelson missed the cut). My favorite included this line:


"Well the next thing you know [North Carolina Democrat] Brad [Miller]'s a congressman with all the sneaky aliens eating from his hand. Sugar Daddy Miller's what they call him in DC, giving them the taxes he stole from you and me."


Brilliant. It seems that illegal immigration is the one core issue on which the GOP still thinks it can push the Dems, and don't be confused – "illegal immigration" means "dirty wetbacks stealing our jobs" to the Republican Party. But anti-Latino sentiment wasn't always standard practice, that is, if we choose to recall the halcyon days of the 2000 presidential primary:


When he ran for president in 2000, George W. Bush implicitly promised that the era of Republican race-baiting was over. If compassionate conservatism meant anything, it was intended to exchange carefully calibrated attacks on welfare queens for a new Republican willingness to talk about the urban poor. But the true hallmark of the Bush ethos of tolerance was its political embrace of Latinos. Remember when el presidente blurted out Spanish phrases in nearly every stump appearance?


OK, so it's no news that Republicans are hypocrites. But when conservative candidates stoop to using lines like "These illegal aliens pay no taxes but take our jobs and our government handouts, then spit in our face and burn our flags", why can't more people see through the transparency? Why won't any Democrat ever accuse his race-baiting opponent from "cut-and-running" from his compassionate conservative agenda in a last gasp attempt to shore up rapidly diminishing power? And why do so many Americans – themselves the sons and daughters of immigrants – accept the premise?

I’m a whiney douchebag and I approved this message

Doing follow-up work I should have done before yesterday's post, I had the pleasure to spend some time on Wisconsin Republican candidate Paul R. Nelson's website. And boy is it a hoot.


Nelson's website is considerate enough to post the sex study ad I wrote about yesterday ("Ron Kind pays for sex, not for soldiers"), as well as two others that are almost as full of vile half-truths. But the "Marine vet and hockey dad" (???) saves his best material for the radio.


Do yourself a favor and listen to these ads yourself – one is about partial-birth abortion and the other is focused on the defense of marriage. They were so much fun to listen to that I've copied both ads below, but trust me, the transcripts do *not* do them justice:


Little Girl: My name is Rebecca and I'm 7. I'm learning a lot in school but there is still a lot I don't know. One day, grandma said I was going to have a little sister. I couldn't wait to have someone to play with. Mommy's stomach started to get bigger and I got really excited. Today, Mommy came home from the doctor and I don't have a sister anymore.

Older Woman: Rebecca's mother has a partial-birth abortion. Ron Kind actually supports this heinous procedure.

PRN: As the father of four children and expecting our fifth, I understand how beautiful a life is. I'm Paul R. Nelson and I approve of this message. Elect me to Congress and I will work to end the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion.

Older Man: Paid for by Marine Corps veteran and hockey dad, Paul R. Nelson.


~~~


(Organ music playing "Bridal Chorus")

Man: This wedding paid for by Marine Corps veteran and hockey dad, Paul R. Nelson for Congress.

Mom: Look how beautiful she is.

Little Girl: Mommy, her dress is so pretty.

Priest: If anyone objects to defending marriage, may you speak now or forever hold your peace.

Excited Guy: I OBJECT!

(oohs and ahhs and gasps and a few hisses)

Little Girl: Is Ron Kind against marriage?

Man V/O: Ron Kind actually voted twice for the destruction of marriage.

PRN: My name is Paul R. Nelson and I approve of this message because the foundation of a family is a mom and a dad.

Priest: I now pronounce you husband and wife.

Little Girl: Mommy – can we trust anyone to defend marriage?

Mom: Don't worry, honey. Daddy and I are voting for Paul R. Nelson for Congress.


I shit you not, I changed nary a word. Paul R. Nelson – I dare say you're a ninny.

Wednesday

T-Minus Thirteen

We are less than two weeks away from Election Day, and Americans will likely welcome the post November 7 reprieve from Macaca, maf54 and, most of all, negative attacking campaign advertisements. Not me, however; I love this shit.


Here in the Windy City, freshman Democratic Representative Melissa Bean looks to be secure in retaining her seat, but that hasn't stopped her opponent David McSweeney from going negative. Of course, his only tangible point seems to be that folks shouldn't re-elect Bean because Nancy Pelosi is ugly. Really. McSweeney doesn't say anything too bad about either Bean or Pelosi, he simply uses unflattering pictures of the House Minority Leader to make (or more accurately, not make) his point. A non-sequitur? Sure…but this is Chicago politics.


Just north in cheese-head land, Republican Paul R. Nelson is challenging incumbent Ron Kind and using recycled GOP verbiage to do so. Try guessing which "offense" Kind is not accused of supporting:


  • Studying bisexual, transgendered and two-spirited Aleutian Eskimos
  • Studying the sex lives of Vietnamese prostitutes
  • Studying the masturbation habits of old men
  • Paying teenage girls to watch pornographic movies with probes connected to their genitalia
  • Studying the affects of sleep deprivation on the sexual appetites of pre- and post-pubescent boys

(Calm down, Mr. Foley. I made up the last one)


Rush Limbaugh, apparently offended that his name has recently slipped to #2 or #3 on the national Republican windbag wacko list, is attacking Michael J. Fox for his support of several national Democratic candidates who support stem cell research. Limbaugh's beef? That Fox is "exaggerating" his Parkinson's to make for more compelling TV. Really, Rush? If Fox cared enough about compelling TV that he was willing to exploit his own disease, wouldn't he have taken steps to ensure that Spin City didn't suck so badly?


In Tennessee, rising star Dem Harold Ford is in a surprisingly tight race for the Senate seat held by Bob Corker (not too many liberals with family baggage make it in the South…and his black skin doesn't help matters either). And yet, Ford has become so much of a threat that Corker's campaign has resorted to using thinly-veiled racial attacks to support his more obvious political ones:


Corker depicts himself as "more senatorial" than Ford but is running an almost entirely negative campaign at this point. He depicts Ford as a smooth-talking city slicker… [but] the hardest blows have come from the national GOP. The National Republican Senatorial Committee ridicules Ford's expensive tastes on a "Fancy Ford" website, and the Republican National Committee is airing a controversial new ad that features a scantily clad blonde who says she met Ford at a Playboy party. "Harold, call me!" the woman chirps.


Democrats, meanwhile, seem content to simply allow voters to draw their own lines between GOP candidates and a certain historically unpopular president. I mean, who knew that simply shaking hands with the Interloper could be enough to decide an otherwise tight election? Of course, Dennis Hastert has decided to do his GOP cronies one better, inviting to his home and posing with the self-described "spiritual advisor to the scum of the Earth". I wonder if K.A. Paul has ever been to Crawford, TX?

Tuesday

Blast from the Past

Every once in a while, a great voice will silence itself rather than yield to sheer popular momentum. In the case of PatRoW, I've had a busy two weeks. And the Mets crushed my hopes and dreams…or at least my plans for a weekend in Detroit.


So what did I miss?


Hey – there's an election thing going on and (fingers crossed) the Democrats haven't totally fucked things up…yet. With seemingly infinite proof that Iraq was a mistake and leadership has no plan, even military veterans and their families are on the cusp on deserting the GOP. Well at least Republicans still have the fierce loyalty of their bestest buddies, the Christian Right, right? Uh… not so much. The loss of those two groups will probably hurt more than the loss of support from high school bullies, who no doubt will be turned off by Rick Santorum coming out of the closet as a Star Trek Lord of the Rings geek.


It's not all good for the Dems. Likely presidential candidate (and perhaps only "I'm not Hillary" candidate with a chance) Mark Warner dropped out of the race to "spend more time with family". Like you, I assumed that meant an impending sex scandal…but it seems as if the former Virginia governor may simply enjoy hanging out with his wife and kids. Some wonder if Warner's exit will open the door for a figurative and literal dark horse. And a popular pollster compares a possible Democratic election victory to the life of Forrest Gump (mama always said electoral politics was like a box of chocolates).


How about the issues? Well, ladies – you better get your abortions now…that is, if you live in South Dakota. The environment is proving to be a convenient wedge issue in gubernatorial races from New York and Florida to Oregon and California. The GOP keeps trucking out its tired "stay the course v. duck and run" routine, but hey, at least Rummy's mission was clearly outlined by God. Did I just call it stay the course? Republicans never, ever said "stay the course"… except when they did.


There was an article entitled " Bill O'Reilly: not a good obstetric-health authority ", which is funny on so many levels that I couldn't even bring myself to read past the headline. But it does illustrate one more way Bill O'Reilly and I are exact opposites.


I'm back, baby! People of Norway – your hero has come home.

Wednesday

A lying douchebag on Fox News? Call Mr. Ripley, because I don't believe it...

Much like Bill O'Reilly running an erroneous "D-FL"under Mark Foley's name to confuse the rubes GOP faithful, Fox News is again complicit in deceit and horrendous journalism.


Appearing on the October 8 edition of "FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace", the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins offered up his theory on the real culprits behind Foleygate:


… I mean, CBS reported this week that there's a network of gay staffers that covered for Foley. Was that part of what led up to this? Was it a disservice to the Republican leadership by staffers?


That's right, douchebag, blame the fags. But hey, if CBS reported it, it must be true, right?


Uh…not so much.


Perkins was referring to a CBS News segment in which a pundit guessed that a network of gay staffers had, in fact, covered up for Mark Foley. That's pundit's name? Tony Perkins.


So if you're scoring at home – Perkins went on CBS to make a baseless and offensive allegation. CBS aired his quote as one man's opinion. Then, Perkins went on another network to claim that CBS was "reporting" the filth he made up.


Nice guy, that Tony Perkins. Unfortunately, confidential top-level informants that live in my head report that he likes to sodomize goats.

28 Days Before

We're closing in on the home stretch of the 2006 campaign season and – dare I jinx it? – things are looking worse and worse for the Evil Empire and its Wonderful Wizard. Here's a brief sample:


Only 46 percent of Americans approve of the way Bush is handling terrorism now, an eight-point drop in two weeks. Only 40 percent think the United States did the right thing in invading Iraq. Worse still for the GOP: It's hard to see how Bush can turn those numbers around. According to the CBS/New York Times poll, 83 percent of Americans believe the president is either "hiding something" or "mostly lying" when he talks about Iraq. Bush's approval rating has dropped to 34 percent in the CBS/New York Times poll; it's at 37 percent in the USA Today/Gallup poll and at 39 percent in the two other polls.


Shit, whatever will the GOP do? I know – fall back on old scare tactics about terrorism and "staying the course". Except, that's not such a good story either…


Five years after 9/11, Osama bin Laden is still on the loose. Four years after George W. Bush vowed to keep Iran and North Korea from threatening us with weapons of mass destruction, both seem to be on the road to doing just that. And three and a half years into the president's Iraq adventure, the U.S. death rate is spiking even as hopes of a happy ending are tanking.


(I know, I know…"happy ending". Good one, Beavis)


A lot can happen in four weeks, and God knows Democrats are prone to passivity and reaction when they should continue to proactively pressure the GOP on all fronts. Foleygate will hurt a lot of Republican congressmen, but it is a story more National Enquirer than New York Times. Iraq is a clusterfuck, South Korea has nukes, Iran is almost there, Afghanistan is becoming increasingly re-Talibanized, the president is an incompetent buffoon, the Secretary of Defense is a cranky and indecisive, and – oh yeah – a certain lanky Saudi with bad kidneys is still broadcasting messages of hate on sleeper cell leaders' video iPods around the world. "Staying the course"? What more proof is needed to convince Americans that we are in dire need of a new direction?

Thursday

Sunshine State Voter Fraud ’06

From the state that brought you the hanging chad, now a new Republican crony Secretary of State is sweeping into action to block the Democratic process.


You see, Florida *law* says that because Mark Foley won his party's primary, his name must remain on the ballot despite his resignation; votes cast for Foley will be deemed votes for Joe Negron, the man chosen by Republicans to replace the disgraced pederast politician.


Yuk. Who would cast his vote for Foley, even if he knew it would be counted for someone who presumably didn't initiate cybersex with 16-year-old boys? That's exactly the conundrum faced by Florida Secretary of State Sue Cobb, a "major Republican contributor named to her post by Florida Gov. Jeb Bush".


How to get around such a sticky situation? Cobb's office is allowing county officials to post signs at the polls explaining that a vote for Foley is really a vote for a non-kid toucher. You know, in the interest of an educated electorate and all. Of course, there is the pesky matter of the existing law that says signs cannot be hung within 100 feet of a voting booth…


Salon, in its infinite wisdom, offers a compromise:


…we're sure that Negron won't mind if the Secretary of State's Office adds a few more things to its sign -- like, say, the fact that House Republicans knew about Foley's problems but didn't do much to stop him, that the Republican Congress has joined George W. Bush in turning a budget surplus into a massive federal deficit, that Saddam Hussein didn't really have any WMD and that Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11. As state GOP spokesman Jeff Sadosky says, "A more educated voter is a better voter."


Now who could argue with that? Except, of course, anyone who needs to hide the truth.

Wednesday

What’s in a name? (A pedophile by any other word would smell as revolting…)

TNR contributor Kevin Arnovitz asks "Mark Foley: bad for the gays?" I'll skip his reasoned arguments (that's just my style) to answer a resounding NO; what's bad for homosexuals is douchebags like you calling them "the gays" like they are objects, not people.


Anytime someone refers to a minority group with the article "the" attached as a prefix, it really sticks in my craw (sorry to use such harsh language). "The Jews" run show business? "The Mexicans" are destroying our country with a rash of illegal immigration? "The Muslims" are savage, bloodthirsty terrorists?


Let's not pigeonhole diverse groups of people into a convenient – and inaccurate – mold. Mark Foley is a pedophile and a homosexual, but his kid-touching ways are in no way reflective of the greater population of gay people…just like his man-loving ways are in no way reflective of the greater population of NAMBLA members. I mean, no one is asking "Mark Foley: bad for the pedophiles?" are they?

Things maf54 didn’t have time to IM about

Despite the fact that Mark Foley has been active chatting as recently as Tuesday morning, there are other stories in the news. Salon does a nice job of putting together the pieces on the following subjects:


Bill Frist Hearts Talibanduring a stop in Afghanistan Monday, Frist said that there are now so many Taliban in Afghanistan that "you need to bring them into a more transparent type of government. And if that's accomplished, we'll be successful." Nice. I love changing the definition of success to meet the limited progress we've made. It really sets a nice example for an entire generation of underachieving American schoolchildren.


George Allen has lost touch with reality – in a new commercial, the senator blames himself for some recent problems, but complains that "negative personal attacks and baseless allegations have also pulled us away from what you expect and deserve." Right – baseless allegations like the ones confirmed by dozens of independent and unaffiliated sources. Damn, I hate those well-researched and substantiated "baseless allegations".


Rummy keeps Dubya from looking like a fool…well, *more* of a fool – the Interloper has taken a lot of heat for having a certain banner appear behind him while speaking on a Navy aircraft carrier and wearing a flight suit. But things could have been worse:


Bob Woodward told Larry King Monday that the words "mission accomplished" were actually going to be included in Bush's speech on that day in May 2003 -- at least until Donald Rumsfeld intervened and got them out. "Rumsfeld was in Baghdad, and they sent him an advanced copy of the speech," Woodward said. "And he said, 'I almost died because "mission accomplished" was in the speech.' And he said, 'I got it out of the speech but I didn't get the sign down.'"


Gee, if Rummy knew that the mission wasn't exactly accomplished, why would el presidente even go through with the speech? My guess – that flight suit was too tempting not to wear; luckily, Rummy hid Dubya's NASA uniform to keep him from invading Mars.


Bill O'Reilly is still a douchebag – " During Bill O'Reilly's show Tuesday night, Fox News repeatedly ran video clips of Mark Foley over a caption identifying him as a Democrat". I guess when policy fails and politicians can't be trusted, the GOP has fallen back on Plan C – rewriting history.

The best YouTube since Drunken Aschlochs

Today I owe a debt of gratitude to the gang over at DoG for doing me a solid, Casey Kasem style. I never get sick of hearing a confirmed hypocrite/pedophile say "If I were, uh, one of these sickos, I'd be, uh, nervous with America's Most Wanted on my trail."


Damn, if irony isn't a bitch. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a busy day ahead of me IM'ing with maf54.

Monday

Macaca who?

I'm sure there's some real news going on today, some of which might even hold dire political ramifications for Republicans…but who's watching? Not me.


If you have only seen or heard tidbit, take five minutes to read the full chat transcript between Representative Mark Foley and an underage male page. The boy called it "sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick"…and he may have been understating things.