Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Love is in the air!













"Oh, Georgie, I hope you will like the Get Out of Impeachment Free card I got you for Valentine's Day."

30 comments:

Mary Ellen said...

Man...having to look at Nancy and George at the same time, makes me ill.

I wonder who Nancy voted for yesterday? I have the feeling it was John McCain.

Dean Wormer said...

Perhaps she's hoping for one of his patented backrubs.

Candace said...

Grr. Come on November!

Mary Ellen said...

It friggin' snowing AGAIN. I think hell is freezing over. I guess it's better than tornadoes. I feel so bad for those who were hit in Tennessee last night.

Randal Graves said...

ME, then mission accomplished! Can't have any fun with captions if you pick a photo of flowers.

dean, that was uncalled for. Now I'm going to have nightmares about that.

candace, you've got that right.

ME 2, I couldn't even imagine having to deal with that. The worst we ever get is the occasional psycho blizzard or some flooding, but nothing like the plains gets.

The weather gets more and more fucked up and erratic every single year.

Tom Harper said...

Dumbya's thinking: "Mmmmph! A foursome with Nancy, Condi and Laura."

Who Hijacked Our Country

dguzman said...

My guess is that Chimpy just tooted.

Mary Ellen said...

Randal- When are you going to give the ladies who visit your blog a little eye candy? Naked women...psycho president...botox Nancy...c'mon!

Distributorcap said...

"how can i impeach such a dreamy man"

fairlane said...

Is that the real Nancy or is that the Botox smiling?

Christopher said...

They deserve one another.

The Worst President Ever and one of the Worst Speakers Ever.

History will not be kind.

PoliShifter said...

"Oh George, the more you do me the more I don't want to Impeach You..."

Frederick said...

Georgie, "But you gave me the same thing last Valentines day..."

Snave said...

I'll expand on Frederick's most astute of comments:

"Scheise, Nancy! Thank you!!! Don't worry, I don't mind that you've given me that same gift two years in a row! It's all I could ever have hoped for, to get this gift two years running. Can you guys please save a presidential pardon for me for one of these days?"

Swinebread said...

Somebody is getting fucked and I don't think they are in that picture

Randal Graves said...

tom harper, I should permanently ban you for that grotesque image. ;-)

dguzman, ha ha ha!

ME, when Republicans stop being evil.

dcap, he IS Commander Codpiece. With the kung-fu grip!

fairlane, yikes, you might be right!

christopher, if that isn't the goddamn truth, I don't know what is.

poli, please stop.

frederick and snave, ha ha ha!

swinebread, and certainly not the enjoyable kind!

Freida Bee said...

Nancy's thought bubble,

"People have him so wrong. He is so good that I am rubbing my stockinged food up his leg right now on national television and he 's just mixing up his words a little. If they knew what a raging boner he has, they'd be completely amazed at his utter clarity under pressure. He's so misunderstood. I understand you and your sweet lovin', George and I'm by your side."

Freida Bee said...

foot

thought the other way might be what Nancy's into.

Christopher said...

Speaker Botox looks like she's late for a new treatment of Botox to firm up her mug.

My Inner French Girl said...

That's a very creepy look on her face. What, is there a gun pointing at her head off-camera?

Salut,
Marjorie

pissed off patricia said...

That photo makes my stomach feel queasy. Randal, why do you hate my stomach? I mean I bake like about a zillion birthday cakes for the parties you have for people I never even heard of, and you thank me by posting a picture of the worst president in history and his enabler.

Randal Graves said...

FB, I post an important, in-depth treatise on love, and all you guys do is make smarmy, perverted comments that are just a little too blue for this blog.

christopher, I'm sure the payment for that is included in some unseen rider tacked onto the stimulus bill.

marjorie, nope, that's just how our lovely and useless speaker looks.

POP, you're right. Though you cannot see it, I assure you, my head is hanging in shame. But fire up that oven, we're celebrating another birthday later on!

TomCat said...

Pelosi should be replaced as speaker for her failure to impeach.

Spartacus said...

Is this cool or what? I get the "fuck me" look while my constituents get fucked! What a country!

Dr. Zaius said...

For those that are complaining and making the lazy argument that the Democratic leadership has not delivered a non-stop fairy tale ending that meets their ever-increasing expectations, let me just remind them that the Democrats only have a slim majority in the house and the senate.

If the Democratic leadership can't take that slim majority and use it to stop speeding locomotives and leap over tall building in a single bound despite the overwhelming mathmatical disadvantage, then I can only console myself with the fact that the Republicans have had years to mess things up this badly. It might just take a while to clean things up.

A slim majority is only a slim majority, and you can only work with what you've got. I am increasing dismayed at how many Democrats are selling Girl Scout Cookies for Karl Rove lately. Let Karl Rove sell his own damn cookies.

Randal Graves said...

And in the face of not having The Sixty, That Most Magical Of All Numbers, we get this.

We now have an administration all but admitting it serves a king.

Since we don't possess The Holiest of Holy Numerals, what do you suggest we do? Wait it out and hope Obama or Hillary can clean up enough of the constitutional rubble so that the press - as they inevitably will, those controllers of discourse - poo-poos their efforts with just enough fervor to make yet another Republican palatable for the unwashed masses in four more years?

But I'm not a leader, Madame Speaker. I'm going to go hang out in the activist camp with Congressman Wexler and wait for that magical day when we have 60 votes in the other chamber. Until then, if this is our system, then we probably need a new system.

Dr. Zaius said...

This is only my opinion, so bear with me as I get on my "High Horse."

I'm not happy about the way Reid handeled the FISA bill either, but on the other hand any acceptable form of the bill would not have gotten past Bush's veto anyway. The attorney General is part of the White House, so it is unrelated and does not help in defending your statements about Pelosi.

You ask since the senate doesn't possess the 60 votes need to overide the veto, "what do you suggest we do?" I would suggest that denigrating Speaker Pelosi serves only one party. Let me put it this way. (ala MWB's World.)

I'm only suggesting that as you hang out in the activist camp with Congressman Wexler, that you check out The Gavel and this list see what is really going on in the senate and especially the House of Representatives. The media, including Salon.com, fails to report much of the work that goes on there. I think that Pelosi has gotten a bum steer by many in the blogosphere.

I've said this part before:

I can't say that I agree with you about Nancy Pelosi, but as a Democrat I realize that most memebers of our big tent don't really agree about anything, at least not in the details. The flip side of this is the Republican "Invasion of the Bodysnatchers" lockstep mentality. I think that it's better for us all to argue for a good reason than than all agree for a bad one.

There is a meme that is put forth by the media and others that overcoming the Republican's votes in congress is simply a matter of will or discipline, like some climatic scene in action adventure movie. It's my understanding that it doesn't quite work that way. This, more than anything else, has been the problem.

Most of the problems are not in the house, they are in the senate. The House of Representatives [ 2 ] has done quite well, especially when compared to the 109th Congress [ 2 ]. On December 18, 2007, the Republican minority in the Senate set a new record for requiring more cloture votes than any other Senate in history. The Republicans filabustered 62 separate pieces of legislation in the last year, a record.

"The Democrats' poor batting average in the year since retaking control of Congress is caused primarily by their narrow majority status, which has left them unable to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate, let alone override a presidential veto. On Iraq in particular, Congress this year voted repeatedly to set a timetable for troop withdrawals. Each time, the anti-war measure would scrape by in the House only to sink in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed to overcome a Republican filibuster. Democrats caucus with a narrow 51-49 majority." AP

And that whole "just stop the funding" meme was tried during the Vietnam war, and it didn't work then either, and the Democrats had a better margin in those days I believe, and even more public support than they have now. Chuck Colson (of all people!) talked about this at length a while back on CSPAN in relation to the struggles of the present congress. It took the President's resignation to end that war, and you can't impeach the present president for these reasons, and especially this one.

But if people wants to continue to echo Chris Mathews and that crowd, then I will just continue to push against that meme.

Randal Graves said...

Then make them filibuster. Make them get on the floor and read from the DC phone book or the Bible or Atlas Shrugged or Puss-In-Boots. I find it quite odd that when Democrats were in the minority, they couldn't block anything, succumbing to the weak-on-terror garbage, and now that they're in the majority - yes, yes, a slim one - the opposition can.

I'm well aware that this congress is superior to the previous one because some good things have been passed, but on many constitutional issues, they've been sorely lacking.

The attorney general is the top law enforcement officer of the United States and is tied to Pelosi because it's an example of the Congress as a group failing on many of these fronts. I merely chose that picture because it was a nice shot for 'fun with captions.'

And there are times where some lockstep mentality, in terms of party voting as the majority sure would come in handy. Not criticizing these leaders is engaging in lock-step mentality. Don't speak bad of Congressperson X, Y or Z because then you're being just like they are. No, we're not. If we're going to be "pragmatic" by not criticizing these people, then we should also be pragmatic by having these leaders create some complete unification in the face of bad legislation or bad candidates for an office vacancy. There's shouldn't have been a single Democrat voting for the jokers that Bush put before the Senate.

I disagree with your comments about a failed impeachment strengthening Bush. Clinton remained popular because the economy was far more solid than it was now and frankly, most Americans probably didn't care that it involved a blow job.

Impeachment proceedings won't happen, I'm unfortunately well aware of that, and then if Obama or Hillary gets in, we'll all be told to move on and heal while the wingnuts regroup and get ready for 2012 when the Democratic president will still be dealing with the fallout of this administration.

And then when one does get in, they'll attempt to push things even farther, because elected officials didn't stand up and they and the media can look back and say, hey, you didn't even try, so guess it wasn't that bad. In the face of a tough test - and yes, impeachment would be a tough test - are we to simply pass on it because it would be tough? When the going gets tough, sorry, don't have enough votes and you guys might filibuster? Really? Yes, failure is a possibility. But you still play.

I think attempting to hold these people accountable, instead of looking back at it merely as a stain on our history and hoping that it won't happen again, IS being pragmatic and no matter how many times I get shown that filibuster graphic, I'm not going to change my mind.

If being in favor of a lockstep Democratic group in Congress to push for no immunity for telecoms and impeachment for the President and Vice President and being publicly disappointed about it not happening, failure or not, brands me a Chris Matthews-esque swiftboater, then guilty as charged.At least I'm not alone.

I just don't think you - not you, personally, Dr. Z - can be in favor of pragmatism while subscribing to some Vague Obama Hope deal, for example. Democrats on the floor of Congress, detailing these crimes, whether impeachment happens or not, would be for the long-term benefit of the nation. These charges, unlike those of the dog-and-pony show of the 1990s, are grave.

And if you and I, or anyone else, differs on which path to take, so be it. Won't be the first time, won't be the last.

Dr. Zaius said...

You said, "I disagree with your comments about a failed impeachment strengthening Bush. Clinton remained popular because the economy was far more solid than it was now and frankly, most Americans probably didn't care that it involved a blow job."

Clinton was not actually impeached, it passed in the house but failed in the senate. Public sentiment was enraged at a congress that wasted all of that time to hold hearings that were not successful. Republican's lost a lot of face. When Clinton left office he was more popular than ever. If you think that Clinton's popularity was based only the economy, I would have to disagree.

Bush is a wartime president, no matter how stupid that sounds. I don't think that Republican sentiment and rhetoric will forget that, nor will the mainstream media will just roll over and forget to heed the words of their coprorate masters. I have little faith that it would be that simple, nor that the task should undertaken without some hope of success.

When things go wrong and public sentiment embraces the Republicans, will you be there to agree that it was your faulty idea that made things worse? Publicly?

And if you say yes, that's great. But I have seen enough naysayers turn tail and run at the first sign of trouble in my lifetime that I find myself only half listening to what they say at times.

I must admit that I think that you are running around the field with great vigor without touching all of the bases. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems that If impeachment was as an easy an argument as you say, then I would assume that it would be easy to explain is reasonable and convincing what you would do about these three issues:

(1) What will you use as evidence to start the proceeding? Explain exactly what the evidence is, and why the White House can't refute it. Saying that it exists because some impeachment website says so is a lot different than actually pointing to said evidence in the mainstream media.

Remember, the evidence has to be at good enough that simple majority of the House of Representatives don't laugh in your face. The evidence has to be so good that the Republicans in the senate are unable to back down from it. Remember Monica Lewinsky's blue dress? That dress was the only thing that turned that impeachment hearing into a shooting war. If you don't have bullets, the gun is useless.

(2) Then you have to explain how to get a two-thirds majority of the senate to vote for it. Explain exactly what you mean in relation to recent voting habits of the Republicans in the senate.

(3) Remember that Chief Justice John Roberts and Vice President Dick Cheney will preside at any impeachment hearing. Explain why this will not complicate matters.

Emotional appeals have little effect in actually getting the job done, and do not explain how to do a thing - only that the author desires a thing.

And this article offers nothing more than a rather pointed personal analysis. The closest it gets to providing actual evidence is a quote from Lynn Woolsey about cutting funding (has been tried but didn't work in Vietnam war) and vague references to aides saying things, but we are never even told what the unnamed sources said, only what the author intones that the the unnamed sources may or may not have said a thing.

If it was in fact more than a puff piece, the article would have at least mentioned that Pelosi actually voted against the war, when most of the house and 75% of the senate (including Hillary Clinton) voted for it. When public sentiment was against her for speaking out against the war in Iraq and how she was villified by the press for voting that way. Telling only the part of the story that promotes an author's agenda may be effective, but it's certainly not commendable.

I am only saying that I don't think that it is as simple as you seem to be saying, and wanting it to be that simple does not change how complicated it really is.

You said, "If being in favor of a lockstep Democratic group in Congress to push for no immunity for telecoms and impeachment for the President and Vice President and being publicly disappointed about it not happening, failure or not, brands me a Chris Matthews-esque swiftboater, then guilty as charged."

I have already stated that I am unappy about the telecom issue, and I am in favor of those things that you just said. I believe you are stating that I have accused of something that I didn't actually say. Forgive me if there is some confusion.

What I was trying to say was that we should be pushing against false memes that are being spread by the press and Republicans. Also, I was quoting something that I said in the past, and it may not have matched the dialog exactly. What I wrote to you was at least partially tongue in cheek, and should be taken too seriously. The intended tone of what is written may differ greatly from what the reader's interpretation of it, so I apologize if I have offended.

Randal Graves said...

I don't think Clinton's popularity was based only on the economy, and I think part of the reason he remained popular was precisely because of the utter waste of time that those hearings indeed were.

As for the evil double-lightsaber of the congressional Republicans and the press, of course. Hell, if impeachment hearings were to take place, I'm not at all sure they'd be successful. My overriding theme here, and if need be labeled as emotional, then so be it, is that by not attempting to hold these criminals accountable and instead just riding out the bad times and hope we can "move forward" sets a horrible precedent that vast power consolidated within the executive is fine.

People often talk about the future. I don't want the future to look back and say we didn't try and merely accepted things as they were. Because you and I both know that the Republicans will try this again at the first opportunity. And if McCain gets in? Does anything think he'll pull back on the reins?

As for my, and others supporting impeachment proceedings, accepting responsibility if the public goes "yay, Republicans," yes. It will be our fault because we underestimated the public and assumed they weren't as insipid as they turned out to be, and they deserve whatever government they end up with, in time, a perpetually at war police state.

As for evidence, knowingly ratcheting up the rhetoric to war, then knowingly using crafted intelligence to make their inflated case before invading another nation who they knew posed no threat, for starters. The problem is, and you're right on this, is that the White House would refute. They're going to refute everything, and if we had a blue dress of papers with Bush's drool on it, they'd refute that too.

Where I'm coming on this whole thing, and this is where we probably disagree and that's fine, is that success or not, I want the American system to make a public stand against criminality for the long-term health of the nation. Some Republican at some point will come along, worse than Bush, and push even further. By not saying no now, we're giving tacit approval to these behaviors. We can't just hope that we'll end up with a crotchety old guard, Bob Dole type. They've upped the ante in insanity, have seen what they can get away with, and like it. Evil men will continue to do evil things unless stopped.

Unlike some of my fellow lefties, I don't think Hillary, if she got in, would gladly follow in Bush's uber-executive footsteps, and I don't think Obama would either. But I don't want a Democratic presidency to merely be the calm before the next storm of attempted autocracy. Because if it IS allowed to happen again, and we don't say no, or if we do say no, and nothing can be done, then frankly, the American system needs a serious overhaul and that goes far beyond our discussion here.

If that can be classified as more emotional than pragmatic, whatever those definitions are in today's day and age, then so be it.

I don't want to wake up November 4 and go "whew, glad that'll be over" then find out The Maverick® will be our next president. And honestly, I don't think impeachment hearings would swing public favor towards the McCain campaign. People hate Bush more than they hate Republicans en masse.

As for your last part, no offense was taken, my friend. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to write a frivolous post to wash away the slime of reality. ;-)