I! Have Had! Enough! Of YOU!

David Weigel | January 12, 2007

As tempting as the Ron Paul presidential campaign sounds, I may be forced to lead a draft for Rep. David Wu (D-Oregon).

The crucial text:

Now, this president has listened to some people -- the so-called "Vulcans" in the White House. The ideologues. But you know, unlike the Vulcans of Star Trek who make their decisions based on logic and fact, these guys make it on ideology. These aren't Vulcans! There are Klingons in the White House! But unlike the real Klingons of Star Trek, these Klingons have never fought a battle of their own. Don't let faux Klingons send real Americans to war. It's wrong.

And that's true. It is. Ask Tim Cavanaugh.

Comments

|1.12.07 @ 4:35PM|#

Qapla!

|1.12.07 @ 4:37PM|#

There are REAL Klingons? That means that Star Trek episodes are real video transcripts of the Starship Enterprise and it's crew.

|1.12.07 @ 4:37PM|#

Still waiting for the post on the failure of earmark reform today. Do earmarks and fiscal dicipline not matter anymore?

|1.12.07 @ 4:47PM|#

Still waiting for the post on the failure of earmark reform today.

Was there another Senate vote today?

David Weigel|1.12.07 @ 4:49PM|#

I'm not ignoring the earmark story. I'm actually hip deep in a feature story in which this vote plays a role. I'm waiting for the process to wrap up for the week.

|1.12.07 @ 4:49PM|#

Dubya is going to kill him where he stands. He dishonors ALL in the House of George with his slander!

Exhume Goldwater|1.12.07 @ 5:02PM|#

If you're drafting someone, you should draft someone with a real chance of winning, someone who would be true stiff competition for any candidate: Exhume Goldwater '08!

|1.12.07 @ 5:07PM|#

I will vote for any politician who uses the phrase "faux Klingons" in a sentence. And, please, where are the earmarks/Vulcans jokes? Let's pay attention, people!

|1.12.07 @ 5:11PM|#

I prefer the Ferengi, myself.

They haven't fought a war in 1500 years.

Jim Henley|1.12.07 @ 5:12PM|#

I'll bet he's Louis Wu's distant ancestor!

|1.12.07 @ 5:17PM|#

David Wu's neighbor in Denver is a lengthy black teenager.

Sulu dance, bitches!

|1.12.07 @ 5:23PM|#

By faux Klingons, does he mean the original series' versions or the more elaborately made-up versions from the later series and films?

|1.12.07 @ 5:24PM|#

Sorry for the derail, but Nifong cried uncle.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=2791514

|1.12.07 @ 5:53PM|#

Wow, boilerplate Bush-hate. Sophistication and nuance of that degree is certainly worth my precious vote.

|1.12.07 @ 5:59PM|#

"Still waiting for the post on the failure of earmark reform today. Do earmarks and fiscal dicipline not matter anymore?"

Reid backed down, the new rules are going through.

Nice try, though.

|1.12.07 @ 6:08PM|#

From Conressional Quarterly,

'After losing a critical floor vote Thursday and scrambling in vain to reverse the decision, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., found the spirit of bipartisan compromise more to his liking Friday morning.
Reid offered an olive branch to Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., agreeing to embrace his amendment to a pending ethics and lobbying overhaul (S 1) with some modifications. DeMint's amendment, which Democratic leaders tried but failed to kill on Thursday, would expand the definition of member earmarks that would be subject to new disclosure rules. . . .

Friday morning, a chastened Reid said, "Yesterday was a rather difficult day, as some days are. We tend to get in a hurry around here sometimes when we shouldn't be. Personally, for the majority, we probably could have done a little better job."'

Not only are the Democrats going forward with earmarks reform, but they're acceding to bipartisan proposals to strengthen their proposals.

The Democrats propose the ethics reforms they've been talking about for six months, the Republicans propose even tougher rules in an attempt to play Gotcha! (Hi, John!), the Democrats take them up on the offer. Sounds good to me.

gee|1.12.07 @ 6:18PM|#

This explains a lot...

If there are indeed Klingons in the White House, then former Congressman James Traficant must've been trying to escape them when he always said "beam me up!" in his speeches.

|1.12.07 @ 6:28PM|#

Actually, the fate of the earmark bill would be a pretty good example of positive bipartisanship.

The Republicans did nothing to address this problem when they controlled the Congress.

The Democratic leadership proposed solutions when they took over. Some Republicans proposed even tougher regs. The leadership dismissed their amendments out of hand, arguing that they were just obstructionism and posing, but a bipartisan majority supported them on the merits. And now we end up with even tougher earmark-reporting regs. Hopefully, Reid has learned a lesson from this. Principles are worth fighting for; making sure your party gets all the credit is not.

|1.12.07 @ 6:30PM|#

What's really fucked is that there have to be rules about ethics reforms at all.

|1.12.07 @ 6:41PM|#

And what, pray tell, is wrong with making decisions "based on ideology?" This ideology, perhaps. But ideology in general?

VM|1.12.07 @ 6:54PM|#

"If there are indeed Klingons in the White House, then former Congressman James Traficant must've been trying to escape them when he always said "beam me up!" in his speeches."

Except, he should have said:


matlh jol yIchu

(to give a line from a few moments later)

|1.12.07 @ 6:56PM|#

Pelle,

Making decisions based on ideology IN THE ABSENCE of logic and facts is at the heart of Wu's remarks.

The Wine Commonsewer|1.12.07 @ 6:56PM|#

As tempting as the Ron Paul presidential campaign sounds, I may be forced to lead a draft for Rep. David Wu (D-Oregon)

LOL, now there's a BIG surprise.

So I take it the Honorable Mr Wu is not speaking from ideological motives? Not partisan neither I'll bet.

Yes, I know what Wu means but don't you think dogmatic might be a better descriptor?

But I like ideology. That's what keeps me from voting for almost any Democrat and most Republicans. It is also why I would vote for Ron Paul in a NY minute. Okay, there's a little pragmatic there too in that he's got more of a shot than anybody the LP could put up.

Garth|1.12.07 @ 7:26PM|#

They are not Klingons for they have no honor!

Iguana|1.12.07 @ 7:43PM|#

...these Klingons have never fought a battle of their own. Don't let faux Klingons send real Americans to war. It's wrong.

Because, according to Mr Wu, only real Klingons with combat bona fides like FDR, & Woodrow Wilson should be permitted to send real Americans to war.

|1.12.07 @ 7:43PM|#

Forget ear marks, what about ear worms?

|1.12.07 @ 7:44PM|#

Actually, the fate of the earmark bill would be a pretty good example of positive bipartisanship.

I feel like a battered wife who just got flowers for her anniversary from her abusive husband. It's been so long since anything Congress did could be considered "positive bipartisanship" (probably pre-Clinton, but even then it was so rare that Perot's harping over "gridlock" looks ridiculous in hindsight).

|1.12.07 @ 7:46PM|#

TWC,

Your comment reminds me of the famous Vulcan quote from the next Trek movie in the series:

"Only Nixon could go to China."

It's great that Democrats are screaming about ending the war, but even with the majority, it's still going to require a critical mass of Republicans to end it.

|1.12.07 @ 8:01PM|#

Give 'em Gre'Thor, David!

|1.12.07 @ 8:06PM|#

John: Get your own fucking blog.

Khaaaaaaaan!|1.12.07 @ 9:39PM|#

Remember the old Klingon proverb that revenge is a dish best served cold?

|1.13.07 @ 1:42AM|#

Yes, but I refuse to take cooking advice from anyone who eats live worms.

Dave|1.13.07 @ 4:51AM|#

A supposedly intelligent group of people who eagerly jump to war without enough troops? Sounds like Romulans to me.

Their plans usually didn't turn out very well either.

|1.13.07 @ 6:18AM|#

nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'?

|1.13.07 @ 7:42AM|#

If we could only tint him blue, he'd be the perfect Libertarian candidate.

Warren|1.13.07 @ 9:00AM|#

Dave,
I think you're right. The common ancestry explains how they were mistaken for Vulcans.

{|1.13.07 @ 11:03AM|#

I agree with Dave and Warren. The White House is filled with Romulans. Romulans don't like to fight. They like to get others to do their deeds.

Note to Democrats, being inaccurate in descriptions will never wu the nerd vote.

|1.13.07 @ 12:30PM|#

Your comment reminds me of the famous Vulcan quote from the next Trek movie in the series:

Christ, I just realized i got this wrong. The article headline was from ST3; my quote was from ST6, which certainly wasn't the next movie in the series.

Homer Simpson|1.13.07 @ 12:48PM|#

Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.

Andrew|1.13.07 @ 1:43PM|#

Loundry says:
"Wow, boilerplate Bush-hate. Sophistication and nuance of that degree is certainly worth my precious vote."

I don't think boilerplate means what you think it means. Unless you're Gene Roddenberry, writing to us via a wormhole.

|1.13.07 @ 6:59PM|#

Homer,

Kodos of Kodos and Kang fame or Kodos the Executioner? The latter knew/will know how to take direct action and get things done. Little known fact: Kodos the Executioner was/will be a registered Libertarian. Tarsus IV will miss Kodos when he's gone!

Gimme your lunch money|1.14.07 @ 11:47AM|#

You are all nerds.

Russell|1.14.07 @ 1:02PM|#

Vivi:

"matlh jol yIchu"

As the heroic palaeoKlinkons who imprisoned Hogan used to say, gesundheit!

|1.14.07 @ 5:49PM|#

The Wine Commonsewer | January 12, 2007, 6:56pm | #
...I would vote for Ron Paul in a NY minute. Okay, there's a little pragmatic there too in that he's got more of a shot than anybody the LP could put up.

=============================================

Of course, they DID put him up in the previous century. He did OK, but not great. If Paul can get the GOP nomination, I might vote Republican in the Presidential race for the first time since Gerald Ford. But if he doesn't get the GOP nod, I hope he will consider trying for the LP nomination again. Not that I don't like Steve Kubby and others who have shown interest, but whoever gets the nomination will be on general election ballots across the country, and will get at least some good media coverage. Paul could use that coverage to say some very important things. As a many-times re-elected congressman, he would have significant credibility, and we might be able to parlay that into a slot in the official debates -- something that is unlikely if any of the other announced LP contenders gets the convention nod.

pudge|1.19.07 @ 2:51AM|#

You would actually vote for Wu? This moron?

I've never been in a real debate, and I would kick his ass blindfolded. Nothing he said made a jot of sense.

Bush hasn't listened to the American people ... who reelected him. He hasn't listened to the professional military ... who devised his war plans. He hasn't listened to the Congress ... who has consistently, and without fail, backed his policies.

Wu says Bush's advisors base their views on ideology and not facts and logic, as if Wu is being logical or factual? OK there, buddy. But he's from Oregon, so I guess we shouldn't expect actual thoughtfulness.