IOWA Votes: New Name: StOOpidVille, USA

Tags

Constitution, Iowa, Iowa Supreme Court, judicial activism, literacy tests, voting

You know me, never one to think too highly of the “electorate” am I. No, and with good reason as the good ignorant people of Iowa so amply demonstrated last night. They got a corner on stoopid the likes of which hasn’t been seen since, well, since Minnesota elected Michele and Alaska elected the Wasilla Washerwoman.

Iowa waved a flag and announced to the ENTIRE FRACKIN’ WORLD, that they are both homophobic AND supremely, superbly, stupendously BATSHIT crazy stOOpid.

Iowa, the know-nothing capital of the WORLD, decided in its infinite lack of anything remotely labeled wisdom to un-elect all three of its supreme court justices. Why? FOR DOING THEIR JOBS!!!

Iowa claims, rightly or not, to have one of the best school systems in the country. It claims it educates its young in all the ways that places like Louisiana and Mississippi only dream of. It does not, for the bozos who by wide margins kicked out perfectly competent and conscientious jurists, did so because they fundamentally have no clue what judges are supposed to do.

Armed with no knowledge, they fell for the usual right-wing propaganda. When asked why the judges should be removed they mumbled in lockstep, “Because they shouldn’t be making laws just because they personally like certain things. We are supposed to vote on that stuff, not have them shove it down our throats.”  And. . . “We don’t need activist judges. . .they should follow the law.”

Yeah, moron, shut up, for you make a fool of yourself. Okay, let me explain what you should have learned in civics class in 9th grade.

1. We have three branches of government, which is called a federal republic. It is not a democracy. You don’t get to vote on everything. You are too freakin’ lazy to vote even every two years–you want to do it every two months?
2. The bench (that means the judges acting as a “court” are called upon to do two main things:
3. a. interpret laws passed by the legislature, and b. determining whether a law can be squared with the constitution of the jurisdiction (that would be IOWA here).
4. To put that in simpler terms (ask someone to read it to you) not all laws are constitutional. Sometimes they violate an amendment or article. The Court MUST strike it down as UN-Con-Sti-Tu-tion-Al, if that happens. I know this is hard for you, but try to keep up.
5. If you believe in a Constitution, which all of you claim you do, then you don’t want it ignored do you? No, of course you don’t, unless you are StOOpid. In which case, maybe you do.
6. This is not a new idea. It was decided way way back in our HISTORY. It was a case called Marbury v. Madison. It was when Madison was president. Do you remember him? I won’t bore you or tax your pea brain with the facts of the case, but it established that one of the jobs of the judiciary (that is a big word I know, but it means “the judges together”) is to decide whether a law duly passed is also constitutional.
7. You might remember them doing that in another case you should have heard of in high school–Brown v. Board of Education. In that case, they said that a law that said that it was okay to have white only schools as long as there were colored schools for colored kids to go to, was UN-Con-Sti-Tu-Tion-Al. They did not say, what do the voters want. Are you following now?
8. Now we are going to go deep kids, so as I said, find someone who can read and explain if I’m going to fast. The case you are hot about is called Varnum v Brien. I know that probably 97% of you couldn’t have told me that, though you deem yourself wise enough to pass on the justices ruling.
9. I will guarantee you that less than 99.8% of you has not read the opinion. If you had, you would have found that the people who didn’t want gays to marry in this state were given every opportunity to prove all the wild allegations they made against this. The opinion gives them all, and states all the “evidence” they could muster. They couldn’t provide any studies, and only a couple of “experts” who gave opinion testimony only. The pro-equality side submitted volumes of proof, some of it absolutely proving the other side wrong on key points. Amicus curia (I know, another big word and Latin too!) briefs were filed by all kinds of prestigious organizations across the land. They all sided with the plaintiffs (the ones who wanted equality in marriage).
10. The justices couldn’t ignore that it was a clear case of one side having all the evidence and the other side none, and that’s why it was a 9-0 decision.
11. The hate mongers told you that all nine of these justices, appointed by more than three different governors over many years, just happened to hold the same “liberal” opinions and inserted their beliefs into the case. Is this logical? Maybe that’s unfair, since you obviously aren’t logical.

Which all leads me to conclude that something is awfully wrong with our system here. A US Supreme Court Justice, now retired, Sandra Day O’Conner, suggests that all judges should be appointed, realizing that the “folks” are just not qualified to do this. You make here case.

I’m even more cynical. Goodness knows, I know the term “literacy test” raises a lot of ugly memories. It has been used to disenfranchise (you don’t have to read now–this is directed toward intelligent thinking people of which you are not one) demographic groups–African-Americans to name one.

I also recognize that in some races, (judiciary probably excluded) actual knowledge of the facts may not be essential. There is something to be said for correctly identifying a person of good character, and believing they will live up to their integrity. But for all practical purposes, the world is too complex, too dangerous, and to inter-related to allow wildly ignorant and intentionally so people to make important decisions.

People who don’t know that medicare is a government program have zero right to vote on issues involving health care. They have demonstrated such a lack of understanding and worse, wilful ignorance that it is folly to allow their participation.

Yes, I know it’s unworkable. I mean only to express my profound anger, my utter frustration with trying to communicate with children who have not the common sense of a gnat. These are Sarah’s people, this IS the face of Sarah Palin.

A pox on all your house! I am so not proud of Iowa. I am ashamed.

Related Articles

• Iowa Supreme Court Justices Ousted For Marriage Equality Ruling (bilerico.com)
• Iowa Judges Sacked Over Gay Marriage Ruling (huffingtonpost.com)
• 3 Iowa justices removed after gay marriage ruling (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Now they’re coming for the judges…. (tagg-lines.com)
• Iowa gay marriage foes emboldened by judges’ removal (thegazette.com)
• Joe Mirabella: Iowa Supreme Court Justices Ousted for Marriage Equality Ruling (huffingtonpost.com)

Don’t Look Now

Tags

Boehner, budget, Christian nation, cutgo, economy, foreign policy, founding fathers, GOP, History, Independents, Military, paygo, War

Yesterday was a day of being oot and aboot getting some things done. More on that perhaps in a future giggle post. But today, I was eager to (ready for a new metaphor?) get back in the saddle. So here we go!

Oh those sneaky snakes! Yeah, the GOP.  ‘Member how those Bushites managed to turn a surplus into a HUGE deficit? Yeah, I knew you remembered. Well they did it by reversing a Democratic policy called “paygo”. Paygo required than any new program or tax cut be offset by cuts or tax increases in other programs that offset the new costs.

Well the Rethugs don’t like it. During the Bush years they went to cutgo, which means you can’t pass new legislation without cutting somewhere, BUT it ignores tax cuts. That’s why the Bush tax cuts blew out the deficit to unprecedented proportions.

When Obama took over, we went back to Paygo. Well guess what Boehner plans to do after the apparent takeover of the House? Yep. Read it all at Crooks and Liars. They will try to force through the Bush tax cuts without offset and grow the deficit even more. Nice huh?

How will this sit with the new teabugger caucus in Congress? My guess is that most of them are slightly too stupid to ever get it. So much for ranting about the deficit.

***

Just saw numbers in Nevada and Kentucky. I’m afraid that unreal idiot Angle is going to win. Well the GOP deserves such idiots I guess. Same for Rand Paul. It’s getting too late for much change now, and Reed is actually losing ground.

Speaking of which, we don’t intend to watch the returns. I figure we are going to lose badly and figure I’d just as soon get hit hard in the face on Wednesday morning rather than bleeding to death slowly over the night. I think we may Star Wars our way through, just popping in now and again just in case the Universe tilts wildly and we actually do much better than expected.

***

Don’t know about you, but my food bill is getting out of hand. I decided to make some changes. First I’m going to go to a month menu plan. Harder is some respects and easier in others. First I can eliminate all Sundays, but then I have to account for leftovers. I realized the dogs were getting a lot of leftovers, which means I’m cooking too much, not preserving it or using up the rest in new creations. That will be the difficult thing–accounting for leftovers. Wish me luck, and I’ll keep you posted. A strict monitoring of food spending will tell if I’m doing any better.

***

It comes as no surprise I assume those who declare war have very often never been to one. Only about 30% of Congress has been in the service. There are a couple of new books out on our “war strategy” and how we seem in a perpetual state of war these days, and have for decades now. The Chronicle has a fine review and, well it’s an important article that you shouldn’t miss. It explains why the religious right is also so damned gung-ho when it comes to war. Sick as that is. Forty percent of the ranks are filled with Southerners for instance. Best line comes from a comment:

The society that separates its scholars from warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools.  ~~Thucydides

***

I saw an interesting poll. It suggested that Independents are going Republican this year. No surprise there. What is of interest is that something like 47% of them, don’t trust the GOP. So this is mostly a protest against the Obama administration not doing enough, and fast enough to suit them. The Rethugs won’t do anything they like, and they will swing back the next cycle. We are a bunch of lemmings.

And while I’m at it, let me say this, again, if I haven’t already. Some few independents are philosophically motivated to be such. They think deeply, study, and vote probably mostly for one party but occasionally for superior “other” candidates. Most independents are know-nothings who simply blow with the wind. Today it’s blowing against the Democrats, and so they vote that way. They have picked up a few odd phrases which they mumble if asked, but truly they have no clue.  (end of rant)

***

A poll of chimpanzees and gorillas and orangutans finds that only one percent think Obama is a Muslim. The other 99% just think him uncommonly homely for a bipedal hominid. When asked, they uniformly thought the “hairlessness” of his type most unbecoming and immodest.

***

It never gets old it seems. The religious wackodoodles are constantly trying to “inform” us that the Founding Fathers (FF’s) set up a Christian nation, governed by a Christian Constitution. The religionists, led by David Barton, pseudo-“historian”, leads the way. Well, how about a reasoned and learned response from law professor, Steven K. Green, writing in Cardoza Law Review—Understanding the “Christian Nation” Myth.

And by the by, just so we are clear. What David Barton does is called “proof-texting.” What that is is simply mining letters and writings for quotable quotes that appear to support your pet theory. They are out of context and show no actual understanding of the actual beliefs and arguments present. Often the quotes are asides, having little to do with the main subject of the writing. It is not legitimate historical research.

***

Later Dude

Related Articles

• Get to know ‘Cutgo’ (washingtonmonthly.com)
• David Barton: Con Law Expert? [Dispatches from the Culture Wars] (scienceblogs.com)
• Will The GOP Reduce The Deficit? (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)

Weird, But no I before E Except After C

Tags

American Family Association, Election 2012, GOP, homophobes, Michael Bloomberg, Michelle Obama, Mike Huckabee, Politics, Sarah Palin, Steven King, teabaggers, wingnuts

Ya know, Ole Mikey (the pudge) Huckabee has always struck me as a kinda nice guy. Not the bright light mind you, but a guy whose misguided heart is at least in the right place.

I guess I’m not thinkin’ that so much any more.

Mikey, it seems feels that he was badly treated by GOP “elites.” I’m not sure exactly who he would stick in that category, but I imagine some of the old guard–the McConnells, the Boehners and the McCains. Sad little men who try valiantly to jump on the Tea Party bandwagon, but for all the world can’t keep the smirking “don’t touch me you goats!” kinda look off their faces as they glad hand the “folks.”

I shouldn’t wonder that Mikey was sort of looked upon as a country parson come a courtin’ the town beauty. After all, the man does refudiate 🙂 evolution and all. That does tend to tell the intellectual elite of any party or group that they are dealing with a personage of the tenth level of IDIOCY.

That may be why Mikey decided to be critical of those GOPer elites who have been snickering about Christine O’Donnell and her creationist/no masturbatory policy/where is that separation of church and state in the Constitution, candidacy in Delaware. And while snickering, being fairly pissed since it probably cost them any real chance at taking the Senate.

Mikey identifies with Christine I guess. Though truth is he has probably got about 40 IQ points on her.

Then Mikey went and jumped on the old white men’s bandwagon of support for the new “liberal” Juan Williams, so rudely treated by NPR. I mean, it took them no time to get out the talking points did it? All in lockstep. How dare you raise a leg on our resident “boy?”

Apparently Mikey is still of the opinion that his chances in 2012 exist. And thus we have all this tighty-whitey “I’m one of y’all,” simpatico crap with teabuggery.

Sarah Posner has a nice piece on The Pudge, and it turns out he’s not your usual “I’ll be anything you need me to be” kinda candidate. He may actually believe the bilge he utters.  He’s  in bed and has been with American Family Association, one of the most rabid anti-gay hate groups around. Read it! (This organization is behind robo calls in Michigan against gay candidates, and also the recall of judges movement in Iowa) Don’t look now Mikey, but your homophobia is showing!

***

AlterNet has a really comprehensive article (reprint) on the entire Tea Party phenomenon. Tracking the money and the players and how they co-opt the real anger of the average joe and turn it not only to their own advantage, but to the disadvantage ultimately of that same unsuspecting average joe.

***

There is an interesting article at the NY Magazine that you should probably take a look at. It’s written by John Heilemann and he was talking about it last night I believe on Chris Matthew’s Hardball. I don’t buy his premise mind you–it involves how not only could Sarah run, but how she might win. It involves an unlikely scenario involving Bloomberg. While Bloomberg is an interesting thought, I think he is wildly too smart to get caught up in this can of worms. But read it and make your own assessment. Sarah it seems is destined to be with us in 2012 in some form or another. It’s best we think through all the possibilities. A breathtakingly unqualified person such as this is dangerous and we best remember that.

***

Resident wacko-nut Steven King (R-IA) is on the hate tour bus run by NOM, touring Iowa to stir up the voters to vote out our three justices up for re-election. They mustered  the humongous number of 42 who came to hear King vomit his homophobic sludge. So reports Joe.My.God.

***

Sven and Olga lived in Mina-SOOO-TA. It was winter and exceedingly cold, the wood stove burned low in the long night, and the two cuddled in the bed. The phone rang. Sven got up and answered. Olga heard presently a shouted remark by Sven: HOO THE HELL WOULD I KNOW?

Sven returned to bed and Olga asked him who it was. Sven mumbled something incoherent and snuggled back in. A few moments later, the phone rang again. Dutifully Sven got up and answered. Olga heard this even louder refrain: HOO THE HELL WOULD I KNOW? IT’S TWO THOUSAND MILES AWAY!

Sven again returned to bed. Olga again prodded him. “Who was that?” she asked. “Some damn fool  that wanted to know if the coast was clear,” Sven grouched.

***

Julie Gunlock (I swear it’s her name) writing for NRO, moans about how the media attacks Michelle Obama’s cheeseburger lunch, and then goes about the business of attacking Michelle Obama for her choice of a cheeseburger lunch. The wiggy right-wing is like that–illogical and inconsistent. She finds it just wrong and well wrong for big mama Obama to be telling the Merkican public how to eat. They are adults and can decide for themselves.  Guess she forgot about the Nancy Reagan “Just say no” campaign. I’m sure Julie would find some point of difference. Oh yeah, one is a Democrat and the other a GOPer. Yeah that’s it. Um….do you think there MIGHT be an important issue to waste your ink on there lady?

Time for a New Rule?

Tags

choice, conscience, Politics, psychology, religion, sociology, voting

In an e-mail between my cousin and I, I told him about my blog, inviting him to keep up with me through it if he liked. I told him it generally discussed politics and religion. He begged off, suggesting that he found these subjects ripe for argument, and thus unhappiness between friends and families.

And I don’t disagree. They do foment discussions that often erupt into argument. But perhaps we need to rid ourselves of the niceties of “Ms Manners” and recognize that our rejection of such topics in “polite” conversation is precisely what is wrong in this country and perhaps the world.

It seems to me that those who engage in “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil” tactics in a social context are really helping to cause the extraordinary hardening of positions that we find in America today. It’s really a matter of degree. Most people, let’s face it, don’t pay much attention to either-what they understand of either of these subjects is pretty much limited to small sound-bites they hear through the day and evening, or see in headlines on newspapers they only subscribe to for the sports section.

Frighteningly, these people think nothing of voting based on these vague ideas they have about health care, the economy, the deficit, and all the rest.

Another group have distinct personal ideas of what they think and then go out and look for confirmation. They are the Fox Noise watchers, the fundamentalists, and frankly, the extreme left. They feel cheated somehow by the society and look for scapegoats and there are plenty of those around to point to.

A small group are those who sincerely wish to know. They seek out lots of points of view, stay actively engaged in the news from several sources, and think. They have learned to read and think critically about these issues.

I suggest that the largest group is the first, the “too busy for that stuff.” These people must be reached, and the way to reach them is to engage them in talk. They are unfortunately the ones most likely to push back with the “not in polite company” remarks.

We have lived with that rule of thumb for decades, and it has gotten us nothing but the worst polarization of all time in America. (No doubt a good argument could be made for the run-up to the Revolution, and the Civil War.) It seems we must discuss these things, no matter how difficult and painful it might be in families and among our friends. We owe it to ourselves and our posterity that we make good decisions, not ones based on knee-jerk talking points and other silly “feel good” phrases like death panels, and Obamacare, and anchor babies.

On the other side of the coin, I read an article yesterday that suggested that a small but very vocal group of right-wing Catholics blog with the intent to expose any and all Catholics that they feel are not orthodox enough. They are having some impact. I can tell you that the ones I have visited, have no qualms about calling very well-known and revered religious personages, heretics.

I recall in discussions on a right-wing forum that the argument was made about conscious thusly:

Of course, one must always follow one’s own conscience. That’s in the CCC, but what cafeteria Catholics don’t get is that it says that one’s conscience must be “properly formed.” If one finds oneself in disagreement with Catholic teaching on ANY subject, it means that one’s conscience is not so properly formed.

Of course this is not at all true. The Catechism is quite clear that one’s personal conscience is ”
man’s most secret core and his sanctuary.” (PT III, Art. 6, #1776)

It speaks to the formation of conscience and that “the education of conscious is indispensable for human beings.” (#1783) Further, “it is a lifelong task.” (#1784)

When we are talking about matters of either religion or politics, we would do well to accept these reminders of what is entailed in making up our minds about all these issues.

What it is not, is some simplistic, “I like A better than B.” What it is not, is some “A is better for me than B.” What it is not, is that, “I’ve always been a Democrat or Republican and so I just vote the ticket.”

It is about learning to read and think critically. It is about reading broadly, as much as possible from sources that have no obvious point of view. It is about seeking out those who have spent years studying such issues through their education or work. It is about avoiding people who are “industry” insiders, whose financial interest is likely to taint their opinion. It is about viewing the issue from different points of view–especially how other countries and ethnic/racial/religious/groups view the matter.

It is about, if you are so inclined, praying often and deeply on these matters. It is first seeking above all to be moral in your choice. It is always seeking to do no harm to anyone or anything, if that is possible, and to seek to minimize such damage if it is not.

That’s my take.

Ezra Kline has a piece on what the GOP intends to do in regards the EPA if they gain the House. I’m going off to read Fred Upton (R) and his op-ed piece as to why he intends to declare war against EPA standards against pollution. His cohort, Kit Bond, in the Senate, claims he will attach an amendment to every Senate bill stripping the EPA of any ability to control greenhouse gases. I’d like to know why these folks are taking that position. Wouldn’t you?

Related Articles

• TX: Texas leads resistance to EPA climate action (texastribune.org)
• EPA in the cross hairs (politico.com)
• MICHAEL GERSON: Comfortable, but flawed, view (commercialappeal.com)

Christine O’Donnell Declared Hazard to Mental Health!

Tags

1st Amendment, American economy, campaign contributions, Christine O'Donnell, economics, GOP, John Bolton, Juan Williams, Karl Rove, Obama Administration, progressive Christians, religion, Sarah Palin

The good news is that Witchypoo will soon be able to go back to fabricating her resumé searching for that ever-desireable non-profit job with a big salary that she has dedicated her sorry life to.

The bad new is, we won’t have the ever-generating nonsense Christine to kick around any more.

As I noted earlier, nowhere was there a O’Donnell reply to her outrageously funny and nationally known OOPS wherein she asked in ALL seriousness, “It’s IN the first amendment?”

Now we know why. Christine, is shocked, shocked I say that everyone is not clasping her to their breasts and falling to their knees in adoration at finding a true understander of the Constitution.

As she put it, “WE were all high-fiving each other having thought I clearly won the debate. And the next day, WE were confused when THEY didn’t agree. ” Yes, kiddies, Christine didn’t go back to her lair and lick her wounds, crying in crocodile tears that nobody ‘splained the constitution to her. No indeed, the remained unaware, and still does it seems that she is an IDIOT.

The Contrarian worries that she used the term “we.”

“Can there be others?” he said shivering in his literal boots.

“At least one, I guess,” I mused.

“They” it seems must be the rest of the world’s population. Why, I imagine even a reasonable good student in Beijing U could figure out that “separation of church and state” was not only implied in the 1st Amendment, but also used directly by a Founding Father, to wit: Thomas Jefferson.

The best line uttered, was (don’t recall her name but she is an ex-House member, and mother-in-law to Chelsea Clinton) this great line on MSNBC’s Chris Matthew’s Hardball: “She makes Sarah Palin look like a Rhodes scholar.”

And we hear she gets money from Angle in Nevada who appreciates having the limelight turned off her as witchypoo expresses a much superior degree of air-headedness. Unintended consequences I guess.

***

The Revealer reviews a book that looks sensational. In a post entitled Stories the Religious Left Must Tell Itself,  Brent A.R. Hege looks at Changing the Script: An Authentically Faithful and Authentically Progressive Political Theology for the 21st Century, by Daniel Schultz.

***

Need I say more than Margaret and Helen? I promise you, you will not regret going over and reading another knee-slapping, rib-splitting take on Merika and the Po-lit-ikal scene.

***

Almighty God, I confess. . .that whenever I see the name John Bolton, I am overcome with a desire to tie him down, and with a pair of tweezers, pull out every hair of his mustache, one at a time, slowly and with as much upper lip pain and I can foment. Whew, I’ll say 3 “our Father’s and 3 Hail Mary’s for that tonight!

***

I saw something on MSNBC this morning about Clinton (Bill that is) being rather dumbfounded that the Democrats (read Administration) has done such a lousy job of speaking on its successes in turning the economy around. I’ve seen this graft before, but it bears another look. Does anything more needs be said?

H/T to Moe at Whatever Works!

***

There are two new posts at Walking in the Shadows. One was written about a week ago, but somehow, never “published.” One deals with Catholic matters, the other is more general. Enjoy if you are so inclined.

***

Tengrain points out that which we all noticed in Sarah (where’s the money?)Palin’s tweet about Juan Williams: notably that Ms. Moosey thinks that an employer is required to employ someone whose views conflict with the employer’s business. All this is part of the 1st Amendment, Ms. Palinator thinks. She says everyone is outraged at NPR’s behavior. Hmmm, don’t think so there Mooselini. I think they are appalled at your lack of understanding of basic constitutional law. Try again, or call up Witchypoo, she seems quite clear on 1st Amendment issues.

***

The Contrarian and me too are getting really tired of women telling men to “man up.” No such alternative by men would be tolerated. And the only women using such terms are anti-feminist women who are trying to hi-jack the term to apply to conservative Phyllis Schlafly types. Feminists don’t indulge in just trying to be the new DICK on the block. We change the atmosphere of discourse. Learn up Sharron and Christine, and Sarah, and Carly and Meg, and all of you “traditional” women masquerading as “liberated”.

***

Oh and a big thanks to NBC for FINALLY doing a decent piece on mainstream news about the outrageous influx of big business money to Republican coffers. They called out Rove and his band of CEO ass-kissers. They have received several checks (at least 4 in a week or so) in the $1,000,000 range. Talk about buying an election! If I see Alito shaking his head one more time,  when Obama warned of this, I’ll be ready to get my tweezers again and start searching his body for hair to pull.

***

See ya tomorrow!

***

Related Articles

• Is Sarah Palin Giving Up On Christine O’Donnell? (alan.com)
• Sarah Palin Thinks NPR Firing Of Juan Williams Is Unconstitutional (alan.com)
• Exclusive: O’Donnell Stands Her Ground on 1st Amendment (abcnews.go.com)

Oh Yeah, Oh Yeah, You Go Girl

Tags

Dick Cheney, Election 2012, GOP, Neo-cons, Sarah Palin, teabaggers

Before we start, just remember this post come 2012, and if things go as I say, I’d say I was due payment (gold is acceptable) as a profound pundit. K, so remember that.

I’ve not posted a good deal about Sarah (that woman is an idiot) Palin lately. A few days ago, we (I love the royal we, don’t you?) reported on a CBS poll that had her favorables at an exciting 22%. That’s pretty sucky.

It’s hard to know exactly where that comes from, there is so much to draw on. Could it be that grating whiny voice? or the blatant  attempt to skirt the truth about important things and things of no importance? Her mangling of the English language? Her total reliance on sexy phrases that mean NOTHING? You pick.

Cases in point–Sarah has resurrected her “death panel” diatribe of late. Everyone knows it’s nonsense, but she relies on a cadre of know-nothings and they don’t know, so it works for her tiny band of sillies.  And just the other day, in Alabama I believe, she made this lovely turn of truth: Sarah claims she was talkin’ to Bristol, and she up and said, “Gee Bristol, how ’bout Dad and I packin’ the kids into the motor home and driving down there to the show and seeing you dance? And ya know what? We did.”

Except that the DWTS studio is some 3300+ miles away, and she was spotted in Wasilla two days before the show, and she was also seen at the airport coming into LA. But it sounds good doncha think? Being a regular mom, like the folks? That’s our Sarah.

Now, much ado has been made about whether Sarah will run in 2012 or not. I was initially agin’ the idea, thinking her greed for the good life would way overcome her greed for the limelight. And don’t mistake limelight for power. Sarah gets bored with actually doin’ the job, but she likes the perks–AirForce 1, the copter, the WH, the limos. Seductive. The actual mounds of reading? Not so much.

But like I said, that limelight stuff is C-duc-Tive. The crowds of fawning sweats-wearing men and women of Merika have been soooo well, fawning. I mean, it can turn a girl’s head ya know. And after she has had a 4-year term, if she can manage not to quit after two, why there will be more books, and more speechifying tours, and more idiotic candidates to back to further ruin the GOP.

So I can see why she might go for it. In fact I think she will, figuring that that 22% favorable is merely a concoction of the lamestream media and all. Her Rasmussen folks tell her different, as well as all the sycophants who hope to ride the gravy train on to another exciting adventure.

What of the GOP? Now that’s where my crystal ball really heats up.

One would think that they would find the idea abhorrent. If the recent Bloomberg poll is correct, Obama will beat her by a 16-point margin. But, there is a method to my madness.

I think that that is what some in the GOP are banking on. 

Follow along now.

What has Sarah done so far?

She has managed to get nominated a whole bunch of lunatics, most of which cannot be elected, even when the general voting population really doesn’t like the Democratic opponent. This has caused all sorts of troubles to the GOP, including having them argue among themselves whether they will back, support, or fund such delights as Christine “the witch” O’Donnell and Sharron, “we might have to get our guns” Angle. Joe Miller wants to kill Social security, unemployment benefits, and medicare and Medicaid. These are not winning tactics.

The GOP knows this, but attempts to distance themselves from Sarah’s band of angry only engenders threats that they will can their sorry butts as well. So what to do?

Let, nay, encourage the Palinator to run in 2012, knowing full well she will be chewed up and spit out. This accomplishes a couple of things. First, it purges the Wasilla wacko from the ranks of power in the party. She’s toast, she’s so yesterday. She can still tool around the country speaking to smaller and smaller groups of women and men who still have the hots for her, and nobody will care.

Second, perhaps a few of the down-ticketed nut jobs will get elected by clinging to her panties. Perhaps. But they are now leaderless, and most easy to control. In fact the entire teabagger zoo is manageable, something they were always intended  to be in the first place.

Once upon a time a small group led by Dick  “the dick” Cheney and George Shultz, sat down and decided that they could groom a backward kind of doofus Bush kid who had a wacky “born again” following. They could make him their own, and dance him around to do their bidding. And they did, and he did.

So it ain’t so farfetched to think that a similar band of neo-cons can reason that their Sarah has gone rogue on them, and their teabagger know-nothings have as well. By sacrificing four years, they can solve a lot of problems.

I can see that kind of reasoning among the evil kids.

Whatcha think?

Related Articles

• The Stoppable Sarah Palin, Ctd (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
• Obama Beats Palin By 16 Points In Hypothetical 2012 Contest (outsidethebeltway.com)

Amen, It’s a Good Day

Tags

cake, Chilean Miners, Christine O'Donnell, Congress, DADT, election 2010, Humor, life in the meadow, Recipes, Sharron Angle, teabaggers

As I write, fifteen of the thirty-three trapped miners in Chile has been returned to the surface. So far everything is going smoothly. Amen to that.

I suspect there is one proud Papa looking down upon us this day, happy that at last, in this moment of time, his children have managed to put aside all their petty arguments, and are working in true togetherness to perform this miracle. For miracles can only occur through humans willing to give of themselves without reserve.

Would that we could do the same with all our other troubles. It is a lesson we should examine carefully for the clues that might lead us to deal more honorably, more tolerantly, more humanely, with each other on other problems.

***

On the home front, we are once again reminded that life in the meadow is sometimes most primitive. A new generation of raccoons has arisen that have no memory that a wide berth is to be given the acre or so around the house. One ventured too close, and we were startled during a showing of Mad Men with a horrendous explosion of snarling, and breaking of twigs in the underbrush. What emerged was Bear and Brandy each on one end of a poor “Little Ricky.” Bear is 13 and Brandy 11, so after several minutes they were unable to dispatch the straying coon. It lay crying in pain, they standing over it panting and whining.

I was able to call them off and into the house, while the Contrarian donned shoes and went out with shotgun. A loud report, and the coon was no more. I grieve for it, as I do for all innocent animals. It was doing nothing but living its life, sadly it made a fatal mistake. Both dogs were pretty sore the next day, stiff from muscles long unused. They are fine again today.

***

Andy Borowitz has a great new post on Sarah and Christine. Don’t miss it. It’s important to get a good laugh every day.

***

Ree Drummond has a really decadent cake called Tres Leches. It’s a great cake for company, and doesn’t take much time. Three Milks would be a translation. It’s exceedingly rich. Take a look.

***

Election 2010

• O’Donnell is debating Coons tonight at 7:30 on CNN, but check local listings
• Angle debates Reid on Thursday. No further info on that yet.

***

On the DADT front:

      Us Federal district Court Judge, Virginia A. Phillips has put a stop to all military discharges as a result of DADT. Now, since Obama campaigned on ending this awful practice, shouldn’t he instruct the Justice Department not to appeal? There is no one else who has standing as far a I know to appeal. Barney Frank is urging that if there is an appeal, the Administration wait until the last moment in their 60-day time limit, so as to give the Congress a chance to repeal the act before hand. As I said, I’m not sure why this isn’t a no-brainer. Or am I missing something?

***

Killing the Buddha offers you a quiz today. See if you can give the right answer to 12 questions. Who said it? McCarthy, Beck or Palin. Should be fun!

***

We watched the first episode of Dancing with the Stars, and then quit, sure that Bristol (my mama is a Grizzly) Palin would not be voted off no matter how badly she could dance. True to form, she sucks, and is not being voted off due to “massive teabagger voting”. What a joke this show becomes.

***

And if there were any more news, I’d tell ya.

Related Articles

• Watch: Olbermann Interviews SU’s Alexander Nicholson, Barney Frank on the Judge’s Ruling Barring Enforcement of ‘DADT’ (towleroad.com)
• A locked-up win for Chris Coons in Delaware? (cnn.com)