14 April, 2009

Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

You guys haven't had any good, clean Sarah Palin bashing fun in a long while. Here ya go:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) probably expected her responsibilities to get at least a little easier after the difficulties of a national campaign. That's clearly not the case.

Putting aside her family-related controversies, which are irrelevant, Palin is drawing some fire from Alaskan officials in both parties for her decision to "spend half of the final three days of the legislative session to headline a pro-life dinner in Indiana."

Even more serious is the governor's choice to be the state's attorney general. Sam Stein had this report:

Sarah Palin's choice for attorney general once wrote a column defending the statue of a KKK figure as an expression of free speech and mocked the psychology of a college student who protested the display.

Wayne Anthony Ross has come under intense scrutiny since the Alaska Governor and former vice presidential candidate announced his nomination. His resume includes derogatory remarks about homosexuals, accusations of sexism, and bizarre comments downplaying the fallout of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. But his most controversial incident may have come in December 1991, when he penned an op-ed for the Anchorage Times, a copy of which was obtained by the Huffington Post, entitled "KKK 'art' project gets 'A' for courage." ... [T]he column was filled with racial and political insensitivities that, even in the relatively homogenous Alaska, were bound (perhaps designed) to stir the pot. [...]


It's not just the KKK project; Ross has a history of generating controversies.


Of course, that was just a stupid hors d'ourve, if you will. A little something to whet the appetite, cleanse the pallette, so that you're ready for this signature dish:

My my my. The right, led by Michelle Malkin, is up in arms over the Department of Homeland Security's internal intelligence report on right-wing extremism and its post-Obama resurgence.

Malkin's headline wails:

"The Obama DHS Hit Job on Conservatives Is Real"

So, I have a question for Malkin: Are you saying that mainstream conservatives are now right-wing extremists?

Because, you know, the report -- which in fact is perfectly accurate in every jot and tittle -- couldn't be more clear. It carefully delineates that the subject of its report is "rightwing extremists," "domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups," "terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks," "white supremacists," and similar very real threats described in similar language.

Nothing about conservatives. The word never appears in the report.

That, of course, hasn't stopped the right from going into full persecution cry. Never mind that a similar report was created regarding left-wing extremist groups in January. Never mind that the only people the report is targeting are the crazy fuckers with guns, not the crazy fuckers with keyboards. Nope. It's all gotta be some left-wing conspiracy to shut the Cons down, because apparently, right-wing hate groups and Cons are one and the same.

Good to know.

After that bit o' amusement, let's move on to Newt Gingrinch. He's served up some smokin' hot hypocrisy today:

Newt Gingrch's American Solutions has been hailed by right wing bloggers like Soren Dayton and Matt Lewis as "the conservative MoveOn," and they are playing a big organizational role in tomorrow's Tea Parties. But according to IRS documents filed by American Solutions, they have paid out over $4 million in the past two years to Moby Dick Airways, a company that charters private planes for Presidential candidates and the RNC -- something MoveOn has never done.


So why did Newt need to pay 15% of the organization's income to a company that charters private planes? Newt wasn't a Presidential candidate at the time -- at least not officially, though he spent $90,000 in March 2007 "crisscrossing the country aboard the charters of Moby Dick Airways." There were questions at the time as to whether Newt could legally use money raised by American Solutions for a presidential bid. He wrote a soul-wrenching letter to the American Solutions list in October 2008, saying that the corset of McCain-Feingold was too tight for him, and forced him to choose between running American Solutions and running for President. Bob Bauer scoffed at the notion, saying Newt "made a political decision and hit upon a face-saving explanation," but by the time 2008 rolled around, it's indisputable that Newt was not running for President.

Nonetheless, OpenSecrets reports that American Solutions paid $3,360,346 to Moby Dick during 2008.

Newt is on record as having a strong opposition to the use of private planes. He went on Hannity & Colmes in 2008 to spread the false story that Nancy Pelosi's use of a private jet was unprecedented, and said that Dennis Hastert "did not get a private plane. Hastert most certainly did have the use of a private plane, but Gingrich's word as former Speaker of the House carried tremendous weight with Fox viewers. He enthusiastically chimed in with Sean Hannity to bash "Princess Pelosi," saying "you do not need to have a personal jet to run around."

Nice one.

Something tells me that a lot of our Cons need lessons in telling the difference between protected political speech and terrorism, appropriate and inappropriate uses of donations, and, of course, an extensive remedial course in Constitutional law:

I can appreciate the fact that some Iowa Republicans are unhappy with the fact that consenting adults can now get married in their state. But that's no excuse for nonsense like this. (thanks to readers B.D. and M.M.)

"If I have the opportunity to serve as your next governor," Bob Vander Plaats told a crowd of about 350 people at a rally, "and if no leadership has been taken to that point, on my first day of office I will issue an executive order that puts a stay on same-sex marriages until the people of Iowa vote, and when we vote we can affirm and amend the Constitution."

When told that governors don't have that kind of legal authority, Vander Plaats, in the midst of his third gubernatorial campaign, said he would defy the courts anyway: "I believe it is fully within the governor's rights and as a matter fact, it's his responsibility to step forward to issue an executive order to say we're going to take a time out until the people have an opportunity to vote."

It's a genuine shame this is necessary, but let's go ahead and take a moment to remind our right-wing friends about a concept they should have learned in junior-high civics class: Governors can veto legislation passed by state legislatures; governors cannot veto rulings from state Supreme Courts. State officials can't pick and choose, following court rulings they like, nullifying court rulings they don't.

And then, if you can believe it, the dumbshit said something even more stupid. It's no wonder Cons hate government so much. They have no fucking clue how it works.

I can guarantee you their ignorance about law, political procedure and all the rest will shortly be on full display in Minnesota, cuz the court just kicked their asses:

I was wondering what was taking the Election Contest Court so long to issue their ruling in the wake of the final vote count last Tuesday. Now I know why. They were crafting a 24-karat platinum boot to be sent upside the head of Norm Coleman.

The Table of Contents tells much of the story, especially the Conclusions of Law. Page Twenty-Seven features the judgment, which is as follows:

-- Coleman's contest is dismissed with prejudice.-- Franken's counterclaims are dismissed as well, but without prejudice since they were rendered moot anyway.

-- Coleman is on the hook for all court costs of the contest, and Franken's team and the ECC will be sending Norm their respective bills.

-- Franken gets to tell Norm how much Norm owes him for that little witness-tampering stunt Team Coleman tried to pull with Pamela Howell.

Oh, and the ECC's response to the equal-protection argument of Team Coleman? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Stop it, Norm, you're killin' us.

Heh heh heh that had to've hurt.

1 comment:

stevec said...

Without more context, defending a KKK statue might be sensible, it's impossible to tell from what is presented here.

The ACLU is always getting beaten up for defending the rights of Nazis -- simply because people hate nazis (and for good reasons). Finding a person's views reprehensible is not sufficient grounds to strip their free speech rights.

You don't support free speech unless you also support the same freedom of speech for everyone, even those you totally disagree with.

I suspect that there's more to the kkk statue story -- that it was government funded, or on government property or some such detail which would knock the legs from a free speech argument. That detail is missing. Without that detail mocking the defense of the free speech rights of kkk members, however reprehensible their views might be doesn't really work.