28 June, 2008

Happy Hour Discurso

Ah, I knew there'd be some blinding incompetence in the Bush Regime to laugh about:

We were somewhat astonished this week to learn that the Pentagon had awarded a $298 million contract to arms dealer AEY Inc. despite the fact the company and its then-21-year-old president were on the U.S. State Department's Arms Trafficking Watchlist.

An Army general said, quite simply, they don't typically check that watchlist before awarding big contracts.

Now we've found evidence that the State Department might not be checking its own list.

Well, gee, you know, obviously it's not like an arms trafficker would ever try to go after big, fat, juicy government contracts. Why would you bother to check a watchlist, right? We're the Bush White House: we just take things on faith 'round here.

Fucking morons.

And speaking of fucking morons, the Republicons are so out of issues they have to harp on dead ones:

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s Heller ruling on gun control, Republicans are optimistic that they’ll be able to put guns back on the political world’s front-burner, and make the 2nd Amendment a key campaign issue this November.


I suppose the motivation is obvious enough. Republicans don’t have a lot of issues that a) they’re anxious to talk about; b) put Dems on the defensive; and c) generate excitement with the GOP base.

What I’m less sure about is what, exactly, Republicans and the NRA are going to say about the issue. They won — the Supreme Court ruled their way, and Democrats have effectively given up talking about gun control altogether. So what is there to campaign on?

Oh, I'm sure they'll think of something. They're experts at making shit up, after all. Reality is a very foreign land to these obnoxious assclowns. And they've damaged the Republicon brand so badly even Sen. Chuck Hagel - yes, a dedicated conservative - is fed up:

On Bloomberg TV this weekend, host Al Hunt asked Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) whether he is considering changing parties. “I don’t know forever, but right now I’m not considering changing my registration,” Hagel said, while declining to endorse John McCain. He then floated the possibility that there could be a “new party” created to replace the GOP:

Parties are bigger than individuals. It happens that George Bush has been the leader of a party. I think the party has veered, and shifted, and come loose of its moorings. It’s not the party that I first voted for in 1968. I’m an Eisenhower Republican, and the party today is not an Eisenhower Republican Party.

You know, I think it'd be fair to force the current Republicon party to change it's name, and let the Eisenhower and other varieties of Republicans who were complete and total assholes have their party back. So what's a good name for the new party, which would contain all of the batshit-insane, reality-blind, power-mad fuckheads?

It would have to be something that would capture the essence of party whose credibility with voters is so shattered that they're shit-scared of a man who's only on the ballot in 30 states so far and doesn't even have a fucking campaign to speak of:

The Republican establishment is putting on a brave face, but Barr is clearly making them nervous. In particular, Barr is expected to do relatively well in Alaska, Colorado, and Georgia, and in each instance, Barr’s role might help Barack Obama win these traditionally “red” states.

Sen. Johnny Isakson (R) said of his home state of Georgia, “If Barr got 8 percent, and you’ve got the higher African-American turnout from Barack Obama, then you’d have a significantly close race in the state.”

Robert D. Loevy, a professor of political science at Colorado College, added, “If Bob Barr gets it up to 3, 4, 5 percent of the vote, it could definitely throw Colorado to Barack Obama.”

For Dems, this all sounds pretty encouraging. But before either side takes Barr’s role too seriously, it’s probably worth remembering that the former congressman is barely running for president at all.

Carpetbagger's got a list: No money. No name recognition. No campaign operation in any state. No fucking friends in the Libertarian party, even so. And yet he's dangerous enough in Republicons' minds that they're actually trying to talk him out of running for fear he'll blow McCain's chances clear away.

Is anybody else enjoying this spectacle? I'm enjoying it immensely.


Anonymous said...

Is anybody else enjoying this spectacle? I'm enjoying it immensely.

I'll be the first to step up and say hell, yeah.

I'm also enjoying Sen. John Cornhole getting bitchslapped by the TX Medical Assoc. for crapping all over medical care for those in the most need.

I'm glad I found y'all from PZ, make mine a Chinaco Añejo, please.

Dana Hunter said...

Chinaco Añejo it is!

My, he certainly is getting hisself bitchslapped, isn't he just? Thanks for the link - entertaining reading!

Good to have you here! You know, someday I'm gonna have to do a survey to find out just how many Pharyngulites belly up to this bar... I suspect I shall have to decorate the place in cephalopods. ;-)

Woozle said...

If they try to go anywhere with the gun issue, I think there a number of ways we can make use of it.

First of all, they're standing on the sanctity of the Constitution. We could use a little more of that right now, to say the least.

While we're at it, let's use this opportunity to take a closer look at the 2nd amendment in particular. How do we defend ourselves against government abuse and protect "the security of a free State" in the 21st century? Not with firearms, that's for sure.

Second, it establishes a higher level of tolerance for tool abuse. You want to eliminate restrictions on guns? Then eliminate restrictions on birth control, stem cell research, and encryption technology too. Those tools don't generally kill people when misused. (Possibly other people can think of better examples.)

If individuals can buy and sell guns, the same should be true for DVD copying software, "dangerous" chemicals currently restricted because terrorists might use them, and relatively harmless drugs like marijuana (you don't have to prove you need a gun in order to be licensed for one; why should you have to prove you need a particular chemical or drug?).

Furthermore, it establishes a new interpretation of existing law -- so we have an opening to say that these other issues should be re-examined as well.

Not that consistency ever mattered to these people, I suppose... but this at least gives us some ammo, so to speak.