27 March, 2009

Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

For those who are eagerly watching continuing coverage of my moving adventures, we're settling in. Or, at least, trying to. The cat has developed certain ideas about the new place, like believing it's a good idea to meow. Continuously. From 3:00am until 5:30am, to be precise. I think she wanted me to let her go back on the balcony.

So, yeah, a little tired, but we're doing all right. We may even have most of the shit out of boxes by the end of tomorrow.

This hasn't left much time for perusing Con dumbfuckery. Good thing I don't have to search long to find some:
The non-partisan Congressional Research Service reported last year that historically, when a president is of one party and both of a state's senators are of a different party, "the primary role in recommending candidates for district court judgeships is assumed by officials in the state who are of the President's party."

That makes sense. For example, when Bush was president and he needed recommendations for the federal bench in a state with two Democratic senators, there was no point in asking them for a list of names -- the Bush White House wouldn't approve of the jurists the Democrats had in mind. In those cases, Bush would turn to either House Republicans from those states, or Republican officials at the state level.

With this in mind, the Obama White House stated plainly this week that it would work with the Democrats in Texas' House delegation when selecting judges, U.S. attorneys, and U.S. marshals.

Yesterday, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) denounced this and described it as wholly unacceptable. And what kind of process does Cornyn prefer?

Cornyn says he intends to send Obama candidates who have been screened by the committee he and Hutchison have always used for making nominations -- a committee he admits is "heavily stacked with Republican lawyers."

And why is that? Because he doesn't want the selection process "to be viewed as a partisan exercise" and this is the only way he can "depoliticize the nomination process."

That's a spit-take moment right there.

Sometimes, it's hard to tell if they're really that clueless, or if they're being intentionally outrageous. I tend to believe the former. I don't think these folks are really capable of realizing when they're big ginormous fucktards.

I have some evidence for my position:

Today on Glenn Beck’s radio show, Bachmann declared that the U.S. will soon be moving to “give up the dollar as our currency and we would just go with a One World currency.” Such action, she warned, would mean the U.S. as a country would be “no more”:

BACHMANN: As you know, Russia, China, Brazil, India, South Africa, many nations have lined up now and have called for an international global currency, a One World currency and they want to get off of the dollar as the reserve currency.

BECK: Most people don’t understand, Michele, what that means.

BACHMANN: What that means is all of the countries in the world would have a single currency. We would give up the dollar as our currency and we would just go with a One World currency. … If we give up the dollar as our standard, and co-mingle the value of the dollar with the value of coinage in Zimbabwe, that dilutes our money supply. We lose control over our economy. And economic liberty is inextricably entwined with political liberty. Once you lose your economic freedom, you lose your political freedom. And then we are no more, as an exceptional nation, as we always have been. So this is imperative.

Bachmann claimed that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said he was “open” to the One World currency. (In reality, he only said he was open to changes in the IMF special drawing rights, and reaffirmed his commitment to the dollar.) Beck warned that speaking out about the global currency gets one labeled a “kook,” but Bachmann brushed off such concerns, saying she’s been called that “throughout [her] political career”:

BACHMANN: Well, Glenn, I have experienced that throughout my political career, being labeled a kook. It just happened again in a big story in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. But all we have to do is point to the treasury secretary on tape, on camera. This is not Michele Bachmann being a kook. This is our treasury secretary on tape and on camera.

Your honor, I rest my case.

In other news, the RNC's surveys certainly are interesting:

The Republican National Committee emailed a survey to its supporters this morning. The questions are broken up into two categories: "Domestic and Social Issues" and "Homeland Security and Defense Issues."

Of course, the wording a survey uses can have some influence on the results. Consider how the RNC worded some of their more notable questions. (thanks to readers GB and CR for the tip)

* A recent national poll reported that nearly 25% of Americans want the government to pass more socialism. Do you agree or disagree?

* Which do you believe creates more jobs for the American economy: Government Programs and Spending or The American Free Enterprise System?

* Should Republicans unite to block new federal government bureaucracy and red tape that will crush future economic growth?

* Should we do everything we can to block Democrats who are trying to shut down conservative talk radio with the so-called "fairness doctrine"?

* Should we resist Barack Obama's proposal to spend billions of federal taxpayer dollars to pay "volunteers" who perform his chosen tasks?

* Should bureaucrats in Washington, DC be in charge of making your health care choices instead of you and your doctor?

* Do you think U.S. troops should have to serve under United Nations' commanders?

These are actual questions from the survey, not paraphrases intended to make the RNC appear silly.

That's the beauty of Cons. You don't have to paraphrase them to make them look ridiculous. Their own words do the work for you.

Although, sometimes it's fun to boil their statements down to their essence:

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and his conservative allies are pushing for legislation that would limit the first lady’s ability to do substantive policy work. Issa had originally proposed the bill last year, in fear of Bill Clinton moving back in to the White House. But he insists the bill is only about ensuring “transparency” for the work of first ladies, adding, “We are trying actually to protect the historic role of the first lady.” Or, as Gawker summed up Issa’s proposal in its headline, “Congressman Wants Michelle Obama To Shut Up And Look Pretty.”

Something tells me they're still having a lot of issues with the whole women's lib thing.

And all of that in less than 20 minutes. Cons aren't good for much, but they're bloody experts at sounding like absolute assclowns, multiple times a day, every day.

No comments: