Nancy Pelosi: Greatest Living American

|

Why not? It's not much more ridiculous a judgment than the one handed down by Slate's John Dickerson, who thinks Pelosi will save the GOP from itself in midterm elections.

Pelosi announced that her new Democratic majority would also launch a series of investigations reaching all the way back into the first months of the Bush administration. Across the country, vulnerable Republican candidates are saying thank you to Pelosi. The GOP congressional majorities may now be secure.

They'll be secure because "Republican claims that Democrats would launch a wave of investigations like the GOP-style ones of the 1990s suddenly seem credible" and Republican Senate campaign honcho Elizabeth Dole had been warning about Democrats' lust for investigations in a fundraising e-mail. However, so what? Matthew Yglesias ably explodes Dickerson's thesis.

For one thing, Dole's letter was a fundraising mailing going out to hard-core Republicans and trying to motivate them. These are presumably some of the 30 percent or so of Americans who approve of George W. Bush job performance. And, of course, it makes perfect sense for GOP fundraisers to appeal to those people. But it also makes perfect sense for Pelosi to appeal to the much larger group of people who disapprove of Bush's performance.

Maybe I'm biased because the thought of a Bush impeachment or censure or hog-tying is really the only thing that could motivate libertarians to vote this fall. As Yglesias points out, libertarians who are fed up with the Bush administration are, for once, on the popular side of a political question. Dickerson argues that the "Contract With America never mentioned investigating Bill Clinton," which is pretty much a technicality—Republicans spent much of 1994 agitating for Whitewater hearings. The voters of 1994 knew what their Congress would do to Clinton if they voted Republican. Once a decade or so, voters are willing to roll back the imperial presidency and empower the Congress to take the executive down to size. If the opposition party runs away from a fight over presidential power because they're scared to investigate it, that party deserves to lose.

NEXT: Al Qaeda: Bombing in Baghdad?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Why not? JMJ has done so much to discredit the left on this site that I’m convinced he’s on Rove’s payroll. I’ve never heard anything Pelosi has had to say and thought “Now there’s somebody who can take on Bush,” nor even, “Now there’s somebody who can take on Gerald Ford.”

    As long as the Democrats make their campaigns hinge on how bad Bush is, they’re never going to take over by anything but default. If they want to actually be granted leadership they’ll need more than “ooooooh, dubya SCAAAAAARY!”

    I’ve occaissionally thrown my vote away on them instead of the LP when I thought they had a chance (I live in Texas so that’s few-and-far-between) but they haven’t had decent leadership since 1997, at best.

  2. Lunchstealer, any libertarian who would vote to keep one of the two mahjor parties in total majority power is #1 not a libertarian, #2 a moron.

    JMJ

  3. So Elizabeth Dole only mailed out those surveys to hard-core Republicans. How come I got one? I’ve NEVER registered as a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or any other political party member. I wonder how she got my name and address. I do think if all the Democrats can come up with for a campaign issue is “Investigations” or “Impeachment” they will lose. People want leadership on the issues. Quit running in the past and look to the future. Both parties seem hopeless.

  4. The only liberties the Dems threaten are:

    #1 The right to act like an asshole in public.

    #2 The right to sell guns illegally to inner city gang members.

    #3 The right to get f’d up the ass by private insurers.

    #4 The right to make bilions of dollars on the backs of people who make shit.

    Meanwhile the GOP has gone after:

    #1 The right to do as you will with your own body.

    #2 The right to be free from unwarranted inasions of privacy.

    #3 The right to a fair trial.

    #3 The balanmce of powers of the estates.

    Hmmm… which should libertarians prefer…

    DDDDDDDDDDDUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

    Any libertarian who votes for the GOP this fall is a phony and an asshole.

    JMJ

  5. Hey Deacon, what else would you like to ignore? Should we bother to prosecute crimes anymore? How’s about we just let Bush and the scumbag GOP just do whatever they want forever? Huh? No need to make things right – no need for accountability, right?

    Another phony.

    JMJ

  6. Joisey McNoisy,I ? you.

  7. I love you too, MG. 😉

    JMJ

  8. Awww.

    Now get over here and slob on my knob.

  9. Ewww… that’s a really disturbing thought, MG…

    JMJ

  10. lunchstealer, I think a lot of what you say about Pelosi can be traced back to the fact that she is more of an old-fashioned Sam Rayburn-type Congressional leader, more involved in the internal business of Congress than in trying to be a national leader.

    Deacon Blues, the Democrats aren’t running on investigations and impeachment. That is the Republican line on what the Democrats would do, not the platform the Democrats are using. Democrats are running on better security, Iraq, domestic issues, the deficit, and cleaning house from Republican sleaze.

  11. Jersey, do you really think that Democrats support the rights that you rightly accuse the Republicans of disrespecting? I know I don’t. Also, part of being a libertarian means believing that you have a right to be an asshole, a right to own guns, a right to make as much money as possible if following the law, and a right to f’ed up the ass by whomever you want, if you are both of age. 🙂

  12. Nancy Pelosi can’t be the greatest american. She’s not part of the greatest generation.

    Tom Brokaw will now kill you.

  13. JMJ, no, crimes should not go unpunished and we should hold those who do wrong accountable, but the main thrust of the argument Wiegel poses and Deacon seconds is that the platform of witch-hunting is a weak one on which to base a run for office. I shudder to think at the amount of money will be thrown at this issue if the Dems are successful. When it comes right down to it, government is incredibly inefficient at doing almost anything, especially when it has to turns its lense on itself. The endless chain of committees, advisory groups, watchdog organizations, etc. that this will involve (not to mention infrastructure costs) is an expense I do not want to bear.

    I don’t want to give Bush a free pass, but like the Kennedy clan, the Bushies seem able to wriggle out of sticky situations. Its not worth the effort to research and retroactively prosecute. Better to run a platform that addresses issues rather than points fingers.

    Amy

  14. Jersey,

    I have noticed that ‘phony’ is one of your favourite monikers. Is ‘Catcher in the Rye’ one of your favourite books by any chance?

  15. Democrats are running on better security, Iraq, domestic issues, the deficit, and cleaning house from Republican sleaze.

    To be replaced by Democrat sleaze!

    But hey, at least then partisan politics would immobilize the government. Always a good thing.

  16. I was most amused by:

    It is important to investigate the ways the Bush administration has used and abused its executive power

    coming right after:

    But then along came House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to say that, yes, Sen. Dole is exactly right.

    I mean, he pretty much concedes, doesn’t he, that yes, Dole is exactly right? His objection is purely tactical:

    it is much more important not to talk about those investigations when you’re trying to launch your policy agenda.

    It’s not like he actually thinks the Democrats won’t start baying for payback for Clinton.

  17. AmyLou,

    Who is running on a “the platform of witch-hunting?” Like, can you name a single Democratic candidate who is making investigations and impeachment, rather than security, health care, competence, anti-corruption, and Iraq, important parts of their platform?

    When some Republicans say “the Democrats are doing X,Y, and Z,” you shouldn’t necessarily take them at their word.

  18. Timothy,

    1. I’ll take Democratic sleaze over Republican sleaze any day of the week. Let’s see, Watergate, IranContra, Jack Abramoff, warrantless wiretaps on Americans, shading intelligence to sell a war, using war and peace as a partisan wedge while soldiers are in the field…it’s enough to make one yearn for politicians whose worst sins are losing money on a land deal, getting jiggy with a staffer, and writing a check before your paycheck hits.

  19. I don’t want to give Bush a free pass, but like the Kennedy clan, the Bushies seem able to wriggle out of sticky situations.

    I asked yesterday:

    Who left more piss on the constitution:

    1. Roosevelts
    2. Kennedys
    3. Bushes

  20. And 2. When the GOP worked up its platform during the 1994 campaign season, it was full of ideology. They were going to remake the government based on traditional conservative family values. The Democrats, on the other hand, are putting together a process-oriented platform – honest, competent government that does wonky things that aren’t really left or right (for the most part).

    This means that the Republicans could “go bad” over the next few years with the excesses of Delay and Abramoff, but claim to be true to their promises by continuing to push their anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-liberal, anti-modern ideological positions. The Democrats, on the other hand, won’t have this latitude to give in to the corruptions of power, because opposing the corruptions of power, not remaking the country or pushing an exlusionary set of values, is at the heart of their platform.

  21. lunchstealer, I think a lot of what you say about Pelosi can be traced back to the fact that she is more of an old-fashioned Sam Rayburn-type Congressional leader, more involved in the internal business of Congress than in trying to be a national leader.

    Which is fine, but they’re using her as the national leader. They tried to get Screamin’ Dean to lead, but he hasn’t managed to hold peoples’ attention. Once they can actually rally behind somebody who can propose actions, rather than demonize the opposition they’ll gain some traction.

    Unfortunately, I think when they do, they’ll so thoroughly rout the GOP that we’ll be right back to one-party power.

  22. Let’s see, Watergate, IranContra, Jack Abramoff, warrantless wiretaps on Americans, shading intelligence to sell a war, using war and peace as a partisan wedge while soldiers are in the field

    On the flip side we have Vietnam, Korea, Rwanda…

    Yup. Democrats hands are lily white clean. Republican hands are Macbethian red.

    Knock of the partisan shit.

  23. Goiter, it’s tough to say the Kennedys were behind any significant changes to Constitutional doctrine. Maybe you can claim that the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were such changes, but equal protection under the law is a pretty firmly-grounded Constitutional doctrine.

    Now, as for Roosevelts vs. Bushes, I suppose that depends on the definition of the word “piss.”

  24. Unfortunately, I think when they do, they’ll so thoroughly rout the GOP that we’ll be right back to one-party power.

    Maybe we’ll have open borders by then and we can all go to Central America and commute 🙂

  25. I think I misused “witch-hunting” joe, my apologies; I just think that right now, there is a lot of finger-pointing going in politics and it is clouding issues like education, child-care, health-care, etc. When I read “It is important to investigate the ways the Bush administration has used and abused its executive power” that sounds to me like someone is going to engage in a hunt for evidence of all of Bush’s questionable activities as POTUS, and look really hard in the gray areas for deeds that could be seen as abuse of power. Perhaps that is not a witch-hunt in the general colloquial sense of its use. What would be a better word?

    Re: “When some Republicans say “the Democrats are doing X,Y, and Z,” you shouldn’t necessarily take them at their word.”

    To what are you referring? The slate article is quoted “Pelosi announced that her new Democratic majority would also launch a series of investigations reaching…” doesn’t sound to me like a Republican is making this up about Pelosi.

    Personally, I would not vote for someone running for public office just because they wanted to prove that Bush had done wrong. I already think the current POTUS is a blithering idiot so I don’t need evidence to convince me. I need something more solidly based on how my tax dollars will be spent to address “the issues” important to me. The mistake Pelosi made was to overshadow her platform by announcing her quest to prove Bush abused his power at POTUS. It might be a polarizing issue at present, but in a few years when he is gone, we will still be left with problems that retro-prosecution of his mis-deeds will not help us solve.

  26. Not to nitpick, joe, but both parties were eager to roll in Abramoff’s slime. You can look it up!

    I also think “using war and peace as a partisan wedge while soldiers are in the field” is pretty much an equal opportunity sport these days.

    “shading intelligence to sell a war” – Tonkin Gulf, anyone? I believe that one goes under the D column as well.

    “warrantless wiretaps on Americans” Cointelpro, anyone? Went on under both D and R regimes.

    The Clinton pecadilloes aren’t exactly limited to Oval Office blowjobs. There’s Loral and the mysterious focus of the IRS on certain non-Dem-oriented groups, just for starters.

  27. The Democrats, on the other hand, are putting together a process-oriented platform – honest, competent government that does wonky things that aren’t really left or right (for the most part).
    . . . The Democrats, on the other hand, won’t have this latitude to give in to the corruptions of power, because opposing the corruptions of power, not remaking the country or pushing an exlusionary set of values, is at the heart of their platform.

    Is this Jimmy Carter redux? No knock or slur intended, I have mixed, but sort of positive feelings about the Carter presidency. Just wonder if it is fair to say that this is Carter era history repeating itself.

  28. a process-oriented platform – honest, competent government that does wonky things that aren’t really left or right

    Feel the excitement! That’ll turn out the base, alright.

    Democrats, on the other hand, won’t have this latitude to give in to the corruptions of power . . .

    Is anyone really this naive?

  29. The question of which gang of identical sleazebuckets should be empowered to steal even more of my rights is so unimportant that I can think of only one practical reason to prefer Boot-on-your-neck Party One to Boot-on-your-neck Party Two:

    If the Democrats come back, maybe Rush Limbaugh will become entertaining again.

  30. joe: *cough* Gulf of Tonkin *cough* See also Bay of Pigs. Gas price controls, also.

    I don’t really have a preference when it comes to partisan sleeze, to my mind deciding what day of the week I can buy gasoline (I’m, fortunately, many years too young to have experienced that) isn’t really any different from listening to my phone conversations. Each is a central form of control of my person, each is deplorable.

    My point is that both major parties, to my mind, are equally good at over-stepping the bounds of government. The expansion of the Commerce clause started with Wickard (the result of a New Deal act passed by Democrats), really, and continued through the Warren court (nominated by Eisenhower). Hey, Warren was considered a liberal on the court but BOY was he in favor of internment.

    Equal opportunity jerks, is all I’m saying. Go back far enough, nobody comes out smelling rosy.

  31. Not to nitpick, joe, but both parties were eager to roll in Abramoff’s slime. You can look it up!

    Uhmm…no they weren’t. You can look it up. Abramoff never gave one penny to democrats.
    So can we stop the lies please? Abramoff was a GOP power broker and GOP lobbyist who did nothing for the Dems.

    If you are gonna “nitpick” can you at least be honest about your nitpicks — instead of propogating GOP lies?

  32. Have the Democrats publicized a plan for foreign policy other than “Return us to power and we can do better; trust me, baby. Also, we think the French like us marginally better than Bush.”?

    Mega-dittos on Rush becoming entertaining again. I blame his substance abuse on Gore’s defeat in 2000. He needed an outlet for all of that anger.

    And, ChicagoTom, I did look it up, and it appears that Democrats chose to receive payments from partners and clients of Mr. Abramoff, rather than the man himself. So you’re right in a very narrow sense.

  33. Regardless of whether Republican sleaze is better or worse than Democratic sleaze, if Nancy Pelosi really does bring back partisanship–to Congress rather than the airwaves–then she really might be the greatest living American.

    God bless partisan gridlock.

  34. TPG,

    Whatever your complaints about Korea and Rwanda, it’s tough to say they stemmed from corruption.

    Now the backstory to Vietnam, there was certainly a great deal of sleaze going on there. But if you’d knock off the partisan shit, you’d notice that it went back through presidents of both parties.

    AmyLou, I’m not questioning that the Democrats intend to investigate the government when the take over Congress. I’m questioning your assertion that such investigations are what they are running o

    “Not to nitpick, joe, but both parties were eager to roll in Abramoff’s slime.” Yes, you can look up the fact that Jack Abramoff never gave a single dime of money to any Democrat, while he gave well over $100,000 to Republicans. Or you can look up the fact that longtime Democratic donor Indian tribes suddenly switched their donations to Republicans after hiring him. Or you can look up the fact that every single person who has indicted in the cases – every. single. one of them. – was a Republican. Yup, you can look it up.

    “Is anyone really this naive?” Perhaps I didn’t phrase that well. I wasn’t commenting on the superior honesty of the Ds, but on the structure of power they’ll be setting up for themselves. Anti-corruption was pretty much a sideshow for the Republicans in 1994, with ideological values taking center stage, while for the Democrats this year, anti-corruption and transparent government are the heart of the platform. This means the Democrats would have less room to sell out that platform than did the Republicans.

    Dave W, “Is this Jimmy Carter redux?” Or maybe Mike “competence, not ideology” Dukakis redux? The difference being, the former was running less than two years after Watergate, while there was no real anti-corruption bandwagon going on in 1984.

  35. sulla, “Have the Democrats publicized a plan for foreign policy other than “Return us to power and we can do better; trust me, baby. Also, we think the French like us marginally better than Bush.”?”

    Yes, they have. You can go to http://www.democrats.org and look up their foreign policy platform if you are really interested.

  36. “This means the Democrats would have less room to sell out that platform than did the Republicans.”

    oh, you poor, poor thing you.

    i feel like i should make you some soup.

  37. “And, ChicagoTom, I did look it up, and it appears that Democrats chose to receive payments from partners and clients of Mr. Abramoff, rather than the man himself. So you’re right in a very narrow sense.”

    Yes, the “morons, troglodytes, and chimpanzees” that Abramoff ripped off also donated some money to Democrats, though fare less than to Republicans. Shall we start issuing warrants for the Salvation Army now? Some of the money they received came from people who were later mugged which, by your logic, demonstrates their complicity with the muggers.

  38. Wow, dhex, you’re so cool and ironic, I almost didn’t notice that you have nothing to say about structural forces and bases of support among the electorate.

    Can you teach me to say “It’s all just bullshit, man” while blowing out a stream of smoke, too?

  39. Oh my God– are you saying that Joe’s a DEMOCRAT?!! I’m, I’m, just devastated. Next you’ll be saying that Jersey’s one too!

    I think I’m going to write in for Marc Emery in 2008. Or show me a candidate that isn’t rancid and I’ll vote for them. At any rate, I have this feeling I’ll never be voting mainstream again (memories. . .).

  40. And, ChicagoTom, I did look it up, and it appears that Democrats chose to receive payments from partners and clients of Mr. Abramoff, rather than the man himself. So you’re right in a very narrow sense

    His clients’ contributions to the GOP spiked once they hired Abramoff whereas those same cleints’ contributions to the Dems either stayed the same or went down once Abramoff was hired. Which further proves my point in a much broader sense. Abramoff was a GOP influence peddler, ONLY and did absolutely nothing to influence democrats.

    Furthermore, why even conflate Abramoff and his clients. His clients have their own free will, and as far as the law is concerned did nothing wrong — they merely donated money to candidates (which last I checked was still legal). ABramoff is the criminal, not the Indian tribes that he ripped off.

    Get a clue please before spouting off.

  41. When the GOP worked up its platform during the 1994 campaign season, it was full of ideology. They were going to remake the government based on traditional conservative family values. The Democrats, on the other hand, are putting together a process-oriented platform – honest, competent government that does wonky things that aren’t really left or right (for the most part).

    joe, I’m not sure on this one. I’ve read the Contract with America, and besides the proposed Family Reinforcement Act (most of which President Clinton enacted), I don’t see much in the way of “traditional conservative family values”, but more long the lines of “honest, competent government.” Were you referring to something other that the CwA, or is this just a case of us having different viewpoints on the subject?

    I’m not saying the CwA was some libertarian ideal, but slandering the Republicans for making the best effort anyone has made in a long time to fix some of what’s been wrong with government seems… partisan.

  42. “Wow, dhex, you’re so cool and ironic, I almost didn’t notice that you have nothing to say about structural forces and bases of support among the electorate.”

    i find your abundance of faith…disturbing…

    joe, what can i say? you’ve got the faith and the glory. i have nothing but broken rocks and shattered dreams.

    however, i will laugh at you when your gang of millionaires fucks you again.*

    but it will be a laughter tempered with sorrow for the broken heart of man.

    “Can you teach me to say “It’s all just bullshit, man” while blowing out a stream of smoke, too?”

    yes. yes i can.

    *(this presumes there will not be a terrorist attack during a dem controlled white house and senate, otherwise known as “shit creek: population us” – the removal of much of the mainstream protest contingent, mostly due to party affiliation and the obsession with abortion, will be very, very bad for this country.)

  43. jf,

    I guess I’m referring more to the parties’ and candidates’ campaigning and coalition-building.

    And, of course, the accomplishments of the Republican Congress that came to power in 1994 are far different from, larger than, and often incompatible with, the Contract with America. It’s the political process they established that has endured from that election, not the policy prescriptions from the Contract.

  44. joe,

    If by “political process” you mean the Republican takeover of the K Street machine, I completely agree with you. As far as the coalition-building, I think at least in part that grew out of Ronald Reagan hooking up with the Moral Majority (and god does that name make me want to puke and I hope Jerry Falwell dies a long slow painful death and if there was a Hell I know he’ll end up there).

  45. I can confidently predict a high correlation between the party with the power to get things done and the party that cashes checks from people who want things done. It can hardly be a shock, then, nor does anyone deny, that most of the Abramoff money went to Repubs.

    Nonetheless, we do find Abramoff money (and I draw no distinction here, as I am sure the recipients did not, between money donated by the man himself and that donated by his clients) finding its way to Dems. In the approximate proportion of their relevance to whatever the clients wanted done, I am sure.

    Moral: the party in power is always crookeder, because why would anyone who wants a return on their ‘investment’ waste it on the powerless party?

  46. RCD, though it pains me to say it, is absolutely correct. But let me add this – the dems and cons have different bases with different interests regardless of who is in power. I’ll take the dems interests over the sleazy, murderous, thieving, racist, scumbag GOP anyday.

    JMJ

  47. Abramoff was both a lobbyist and a crook.

    To the extent that being a lobbyist is bad, he implicates both Republicans and Democrats.

    To the extent that being a crook is bad, he implicates the Republican Party.

    I know it’s tricky.

  48. You’d think I never existed!

  49. Jersey,
    Do you see a lot of difference between Hillary Clinton and John McCain?
    (no agenda, just curious in light of your comment about GOP depravity and yr gen’l outlook)

  50. AmyLou you said it better than I did. I don’t like EITHER party and neither one is beyond reproach. So far the Democrats haven’t given me any reason to vote for any of them.

  51. How’s that new froth and spittle protector for your computer monitor holding up joe?

  52. Nonetheless, we do find Abramoff money (and I draw no distinction here, as I am sure the recipients did not, between money donated by the man himself and that donated by his clients) finding its way to Dems. In the approximate proportion of their relevance to whatever the clients wanted done, I am sure.

    If a group was giving to Dems before they hired Abramoff and still giving to Dems after hiring Abramoff, then the money going to Dems can not honestly be considered “Abramoff money”. “Abramoff money” would be whatever change in donating patterns occured since hiring Abramoff.

    Abramoff is the tainted party…so a distinction should in fact be drawn. There is nothing to support the belief that Abramoff directed anything TO Democrats. In fact, looking at the groups filings, it could rationally be inferred that Abramoff directed money AWAY from Democrat’s since contributions to Dems post Abramoff hiring either stayed flat or went down. Therefore the only “Abramoff money” is excess money that started flowing to GOP coffers once Abramoff was brought on board.

    I don’t see how pointing to his clients and saying “see they continued to give to Dems after hiring Abramoff” somehow makes the Dems guilty by association (Unless you are a rabid partisan grasping at straws because you can not accept that, in this particular case, the corruption is on only one side of the aisle).

    Let’s not pretend like the Indian tribes are the one’s who are tainted. They were victims in all of this.

  53. “Let’s not pretend like the Indian tribes are the one’s who are tainted. They were victims in all of this.”

    OMG, Tom, you really can’t be that nieve. The Indian tribes are some of the worst. The reason they went to Abramoff was to stick to other tribes keep them from opening up competing casinos. They were not victims except from each other. The Indian “gaming” industry is one of the most corrupting influences on U.S. politics. Unless you are member of the Joe school of politics that says Democrats are never guilty of anything, the entire mess slims both parties.

    No one wants impeachment. No one wants to go through that again and the dems won’t gain any votes beyond the 30% of the country that have taken leave of their senses in the last six years and would vote for them anyway. The Republicans in Congress deserve to be the minority for spending like they have. If they stay in power, which granted is still pretty likely, there will be no hope of ever stopping spending. God knows the Dems won’t do it and the Republicans are just as bad if they think they can get away with it. Take a few of those old bastards and make them the minority for a couple of years and they might get the message. Otherwise, it is hopeless.

    That said by 08, the majority if not all of the troops from Iraq will be back and George Bush will not be running. In addition, a little gridlock might actually bring down the deficit. As long as Bush doesn’t roll over and let the Dems do any real damage, like price controls or tax hikes, things should be in pretty good shape. You can’t run on yesterday’s candidate. IN 08 no one is going to care about alledged intelligence failures in 03 anymore than they cared about Clinton reading GOP FBI files in 2000. George Bush didn’t run against Clinton in 2000 and that is why he won. It is doubtful that the Democrats would do anything with control of the House beyond scoring points with the Kos crowd confirming every sane person’s suspicision that they can’t be trusted with power. I can’t wait for the 08 Dem convention. It will be made for TV entertainment. An collective temper fit eight years in the making.

    BTW Joe, if you don’t believe my e-mail, feel free to call my work number anytime and leave me a message. I will be out of the office all week, but my voice mail is always there. But, I suppose at this point, you are probably so far gone you think I faked the number as well, somehow managing to use the proper Fort Sam Houston switch.

  54. the entire mess slims both parties

    Yes, both parties get slimed, but only one party seems to wind up in jail. Funny how that is.

  55. “Yes, both parties get slimed, but only one party seems to wind up in jail. Funny how that is.”

    Oh like Dan Rostinkowski? Yeah it is funny how Dems seem to end up in prison.

  56. More inane partisan blathering. Typical of Hit & Run of late.

  57. In the Abramoff case, John?

  58. Bumper sticker on my car:

    I’m Libertarian, and I don’t vote!

  59. OMG, Tom, you really can’t be that nieve. The Indian tribes are some of the worst. The reason they went to Abramoff was to stick to other tribes keep them from opening up competing casinos. They were not victims except from each other. The Indian “gaming” industry is one of the most corrupting influences on U.S. politics.

    Last I checked, the Indian tribes are not guilty of any crimes, and hiring a lobbyist to protect their own interests is still legal, is it not?

    There is nothing naive about what I wrote. Abramoff duped and defrauded his clients. You can pass whatever moral judgement you want on his clients, but the reality is that everything they did was legal. It was Republican Jack Abramoff who did the dirty stuff, and in the process victimized his clients.

    Unless you are member of the Joe school of politics that says Democrats are never guilty of anything, the entire mess slims both parties.

    This coming from you is fucking hilarious. Why can’t you Republicans fess up and admit that the Abramoff scandal is a pure Republican scandal? There is absolutely nothing here to slime Democrats, unless your implication is that all lobbying is inherently slimy.

    No one is saying that the Dems are squeaky clean, but to pretend that this scandal is also a Dem scandal is the height of dishonesty. Yet GOP shills keep trying to distort the truth because they are unwilling to ever admit guilt/fault/blame for anything without whining and crying “them too, them too — they are just as bad as us”. They may be just as bad — too bad the facts in this particular case doesn’t support those assertions — even if you really, really believe.

    In your world, does the Duke Cunningham scandal slime both parties as well?? Is there anything that you would admit is strictly a GOP problem?

    The reality is that having control of both houses has made the current GOP much much more corrupt than the Democrats (who have been shut out of most the lawmaking by a GOP that puts party loyalty above good government). That doesn’t mean that once Dems take back power they won’t be corrupted (They very well might). But right here, right now, the party in power is rotting from the head down — and it isn’t bipartisan rot.

  60. Do I really need to say it?

  61. One can only assume Lord Acton was alluding to:

    The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern.

    Or not. But I like this one better than that old saw about absolute power.

  62. All of my quotes are the same–people in power don’t give a rat’s ass about liberty. Or about limiting their power.

    But please, go ahead and argue about which brand of tyrant is worse. Politicians of each party are sooooo different in their corruption.

    Let us quibble.

  63. I don’t think investigations are a winner. The GOP won in 1994, but Clinton won in 1996. Bush won in 2004 after being called every name in the book.

    The population may accept or even enjoy an investigation if the Dems win, but it’s not a reason that they’ll vote for the Dems.

    No, it’s never a good sign for a Party when they start counting on the other side to lose.

  64. This is by far one of the more bizarro-world conversations in H&R’s history.

  65. Jersey … I have noticed that ‘phony’ is one of your favourite monikers. Is ‘Catcher in the Rye’ one of your favourite books by any chance?

    Well, if you really want to know about it, my descent into blinkered Left-liberal lunacy began when they kicked me out of Pencey Prep.

    The headmaster, Mr. Snickelgormley, was a libertarian. Old Snickelgormley. What a goddamn phony crumby bastard. He would always make us sit in the chapel while he gave us these speeches in a very serious, boring voice about rights and liberty and free minds and free markets and all. Strictly for the birds. The thing is, you could tell that all he really cared about was manufacturing guns in excess of the legitimate demand so he could sell them to inner city gang members. Strictly for the birds. What a moron. If you’d heard him, you would’ve puked, I swear.

    One time, we tried to get this one boy, Gordo Amazingadirax, let loose a fart right in the middle of Mr. Snickelgormley’s speech in all. But he wouldn’t do it. He wasn’t in the mood. Old Amazingadirax. He killed me.

    Never tell anyone about libertarians selling guns to inner city people while you try to get a boy to fart in church. You always end up missing people. And the point.

  66. RCD, though it pains me to say it, is absolutely correct.

    Ordinarily, I would revel in this admission.

    Seeing as it comes from Jersey, though, I think I’m going to have re-evaluate my entire value system. Not to mention my life to date.

  67. *Completely off-topic*

    The entire reason I come here is to laugh my ass off at posts like the one at 6:13…seriously, I giggle like a small child with that shit.

    The only funnier one ever was when Jean Bart threatened to stop the motor of the world…for lunch.

    Monsieur Darkly, I sense your hand in this.

  68. yeah i kind of want pelosi in power for two years…it would get the nieve libertarians out there to see how fucking crazy the democrats have really become…and stop with the the whole “Deadwood Democrats” thing and enter the real world that there are only two ways to power, the republicans or a third party.

    “Vote democrat in 2006…to show just how fucking crazy they really are.” can that fit on a bumper sticker?

  69. OK, back on topic…

    Mr. Corning, how foolish ARE you really? The Republicans are libertarians’ step to power? I usually want to entertain reasoned debate, but this phrase is so mind-numbingly stupid that all I can do is stutter and go…my Galt, there are people who still believe this.

  70. Monsieur Darkly, I sense your hand in this.

    You are perceptive. Thank you. 🙂

    The only funnier one ever was when Jean Bart threatened to stop the motor of the world…for lunch.

    I remember that one fondly. I thought thoreau posted that one, but I just looked it up. Someone named CTD did it … thoreau later quoted him.

  71. Hey i will admit that the “at least they arn’t as bad as the democrats” is getting old but it at the same time isn’t getting any less true…Regan was a republican and Newt was a republican and they did make real changes for the libertarian cause…the republicans may not be the answer (third party anyone) but the democrats are definatly not the answer…

    I mean fuck an “A” have you actually ever listened to the lunatic crap Pelosi says every single day?

  72. …the republicans may not be the answer (third party anyone) but the democrats are definatly not the answer…

    I was a freak for Reagan, and I was a fan of Newt. I despised Bill Clinton. …but I’d snap my fingers and trade George Bush for Bill Clinton right now if I could.

    I hear what you’re sayin’, mr. corning, but with power so concentrated in the executive branch, it’s hard to express sentiments like those without… …so many have sold so much of what was good about being Republican in the name of “The Democrats Are Worse.”–we can’t expect people not to lump us in with that crowd when we say things like that. …not anymore.

  73. Stevo Darkly,

    Not quite sure I remember that exchange.

  74. omfg!! thanks Dhex you made my day

  75. I remember it fondly, because it was the day that Grunnels/Jean Bart and the future Haklyut were exposed by “The Judge” because they had the same e-mail address (thymbra@earthlink…creepy, no?)

    Anyway, I quote CTD in the funniest H&R comment ever:

    Who is Jean Bart?

    Long have the rumors flown of the man who’s founded a Francophile utopia, where, powered only by their self-reliance and some subsidies from the French government, they live in a secluded valley, producing wine, cheese, Citroens, and body odor.

    “I weel stop ze motor of ze world – for lunch!”

    It’s located on the 9/10/2004 thread titled “Kenneth, what is the point size”:

    Francophile Fun!

  76. Damn, I will learn HTML someday…anyway, just search the site google-wise for the thread title.

  77. sulla, “Have the Democrats publicized a plan for foreign policy other than “Return us to power and we can do better; trust me, baby. Also, we think the French like us marginally better than Bush.”?”

    Yes, they have. You can go to http://www.democrats.org and look up their foreign policy platform if you are really interested.

    translation using the Joematic lefty to libertarian translator:

    “The Dems forign policy is so fucking crazy i am unable to explain it in rational terms, plus i am not dumb enough to actually compare it to Bush’s forign policy…not that bush’s policy is any good just that the dems forign policy is so abismally bad that it actauly makes what Rumsfeld and Bush say in public look like a good choice.

    but if you really want to know it goes something like “pull out of iraq and invade Darfur then tax oil to lower gas prices”

  78. I really don’t see how anyone who claims to be remotely libertarian can vote for the Republicans this fall. Other than not raising taxes– and even on that point they have set up a borrow-and-spend system that is going to collapse on itself and result in huge future tax increases– undivided Republican rule has been a libertarian nightmare.

    I hate Pelosi, but personally, I think some oversight and investigations are long fucking past due. If the Democrats buy into this reverse “oh throw me in that investigation briar patch” bullshit, they are bigger idiots than even I thought. The last thing the Republicans want this election to be about is corruption and investigations.

  79. A quote from David Boaz:
    “Last week I turned on NPR and heard some crazy woman ranting ?We have two oilmen in the White House. The logical follow-up from that is $3 a gallon gasoline. It is no accident; it is a cause and effect, a cause and effect.? Then the next morning I watched CNN and discovered that the ranting woman was Nancy Pelosi.”
    Do you truly want this woman and her Party in control of the Government? She sounds dumber than a bucket of hair.

  80. The last thing the Republicans want this election to be about is corruption and investigations.

    Given that two of the higher-profile media events of recent weeks have been around preferential treatment of Democrats committing actual crimes, I don’t know that the Dems are well-positioned to push this line.

    The fundamental problem in Washington isn’t corruption. Its the concentration of power. As long as that exists, the party who can wield the power will be corrupt. Hearings and circuses about how the other guy is a Bad, Bad Man are just eyewash for the masses, gang, that leaves the machinery of corruption intact.

  81. “Do you truly want this woman and her Party in control of the Government?”

    In the abstract, hell no. Given our current situation, however, hell yes– she and her party can have at least part of the government.

    Again, from a libertarian standpoint, I don’t know how you could not be in favor of a return to divided government. And divided government means you have to support Democrats this fall.

  82. See, joshua, that fact that you consider it a strike against me that I let people know how to get the actual information, rather than spitting out a bite-sized summary and spinning it in my own interest, is why you are not considered a member of the reality-based community.

    Man, that crazy joe, actually telling us where the primary-source information is, unfiltered, so we can draw our own conclusions – what a loser!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.