Us Politics | Broadsides

Nader vs. The Fundamentalist Liberals

February 25, 2008 By M. Colby 11 Comments

We live in scary times. And no one scares me more than the faux-liberals of today. They are a most intolerant mob that has become so dislodged from logic that they’d rather gaze reverently at the false packaging of hope than seriously contemplate the issues of the day. They love bandwagons and hate activism. They strive for insular popularity while trampling the populace. And, in the true spirit of fundamentalism, they loathe dissent and flog the dissenter with the kind of glee that is seemingly borrowed from Jimmy Swaggart’s beating of the godless unbelievers.

Oh yeah, hell hath no fury hot enough for the fool who holds a mirror up to the nonsense of modern liberalism. Just ask Ralph Nader.

Nader, as we all know by now, committed the horror of horrors in the eyes of the liberal fundamentalists yesterday by announcing – gasp! – that he’s exercising his Constitutional rights by throwing his hat in the ring of presidential politics. But, given the reaction from the rather slovenly liberal not-so-intelligencia, you’d think that he announced that he wants to suspend the Constitution and, instead, fly planes into tall buildings.

My goodness, imagine if all this liberal bluster was saved for things like taking it to the streets and stopping the war, or demanding universal health care, or cracking down on the subprime criminals on Wall Street, or impeaching the president who has brought us all of these not-so-nice policies. But that would require real action. And the fundamentalist liberals don’t have time for action – just rhetoric, blame and all the Obama Kool-Aid they can fill their confused kidneys with. It’s easier that way.

Remember, it’s these same liberal fundamentalists who have time after time denigrated the anti-war crowd for “going too far,” much as they’ve also wagged their blogging fingers at those who dared to demand real solutions to health care, tax injustice, workers’ rights, the Bush debacle (impeachment) and energy policy.

Sadly, it’s a symptom of the fundamentalist liberals that is becoming all too familiar: They don’t believe their own rhetoric. How else can you explain their rabid condemnation of Bush AND the condemnation of the impeachment movement? Or their understandable yelps against the current health care crisis but their seeming acceptance of the nonsensical “solution” being rhetorically weaved by Obama/Clinton? Or their preaching of tolerance but their vile invectives toward a man’s right to speak and/or seek office? If Nader’s right to seek office can be so easily ridiculed, where will they stop? Sorry, but that’s not the liberalism I studied.

Worse, my perusal of the myopic blogging universe has revealed that most liberal commenters blasting Nader’s announcement have almost completely ignored the issues that Nader has cited in announcing his candidacy. Remember, Nader made it clear that he wasn’t going to run if someone like Edwards was going to be the Democratic nominee because he saw eye-to-eye with Edwards on things like health care, reining in corporate control of our democracy, stopping the war immediately and demanding workers’ rights now – not tomorrow after all the jobs have been effectively shipped to China. But the good liberal fundamentalists didn’t choose the substance of Edwards, instead choosing either the “hope” of Obama or the same old shit of Clinton. And so Nader moved to fill a rather large void in the issue spectrum.

Nader did NOT say on Sunday that there was “no difference” between the Democrats and the Republicans, as many liberals are trying to say he said. Instead, he said there was a difference, just as there is a difference between the Obama/Clinton positions and his positions. And then he went on to articulate those differences, just as he’s done on his website (www.votenader.org).

It’s sadly comical to me to see the fundie liberals bash Nader while he’s calling for universal health care but give Obama a pass for leaving more than 15 million Americans uninsured in his so-called solution. Or bash Nader for his role in “causing” the Iraq war but giving Clinton – and a majority of her Dem colleagues — a pass for actually voting for it. Or blaming Nader for the entirety of the Bush years while refusing to acknowledge the real blame that rests at the feet of the fundamentalist Dems who have done little but play along for eight years – remember, it was only ONE Dem (Feingold) who opposed the Patriot Act.

For the Dems, the solution to the Nader candidacy is not to call for a repugnant and chilling rebuke of his Constitutional rights but to strengthen their own issue resolve so that the Nader option wouldn’t be necessary. But they’re refusing to do so, instead zeroing in on a candidate – Obama – who is mostly hype and hope and very, very little substance or resume. It’s Obama – not Nader – who is in bed with the nuclear industry and its lobbyists. It’s Obama – not Nader – who won’t say a peep about reining in Wall Street. It’s Obama – not Nader – who won’t promote universal health care. It’s Obama – not Nader – who won’t even mention the Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians. And it’s Obama – not Nader – who doesn’t have a track record for standing up and speaking up even when it’s not very popular to do so.

Earth to the liberal fundies: Skip the Kool-Aid, try the reality sandwich.

And thanks for offering a necessary option, Ralph.

Filed Under: blog, essays & columns, us politics

Natural Born Trespassers

February 6, 2008 By M. Colby 3 Comments

Look Mom, no record! Arrest record, that is – because the old Drunken Boat album is still out there. Yep, this morning I’m mailing in the letter to the unflappable Chittenden County State’s Attorney, T.J. Donovan, that vouches for the fact that yours truly has completed the 30 hours of community service he required of me in order to drop the two charges of trespassing hanging over my head.

For those keeping track at home, you’ll recall that I went on one hell of a reckless and lawless spree last year in a rather quixotic attempt to wake the sleepers about the fact that we are, indeed, a nation at war. What can I say? I’m a silly boy who is easily lulled into the illusion that the practice of democracy in the full view of the public still matters.

My first act of wanton lawlessness involved the pursuit of a meeting with Vermont’s lone congressman, Peter Welch. But the ambulance-chasing attorney turned double-talking congressman decided it was best to have us arrested at his office rather than agree to meet with us at a time, date and place of his choosing. Welch, however, quickly realized that the cuffing of his anti-war constituents didn’t look all that good – especially when his supposed “number one issue” was trying to stop the war. Go figure.

Only days after having us cuffed and booked for seeking to meet with him, Welch agreed to meet with us. Oh yes, you all remember THAT meeting, right? Yeah, the one where we had the audacity to ask that the congressman take 10 minutes of unfettered blather time in exchange for five minutes of answering “yes or no” to 15 or so questions about the war and its funding. You know, “yes or no,” kind of like the “up or down” votes he has to cast all day long as a member of congress – no middle ground.

But in the age of terror and bombing the holy hell out of foreign nations, we learned that Vermont’s liberal elite are apparently more appalled by the posing of “yes or no” questions than they are about Welch’s dithering doublespeak and its implied support for an illegal war that has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Priorities, my friends, it’s all about priorities.

The good news on the Welch front is that despite the hand wringing and soft verbal pokes we received from the liberal appeasers, the not-so-good congressman got the message. Welch, as you may know, went on to basically answer our most important “yes or no” question by pledging to not vote for another penny for the War on Iraq. Mission accomplished, indeed.

And so we, the Natural Born Trespassers, turned our attention to the military recruiters in Vermont, with a goal of shutting down their military recruitment efforts for as long as we could. This was surprisingly easy: Put the word out, show up, and see that the big, tough military boys and girls had left and locked up by the time we got there. Hmm, “the few, the proud and the frightened?”

But, lucky for us, the fellows at the Vermont National Guard had a recruitment office right across the street. And so we paid a visit. Well, make that: We occupied the joint and set up our own little “green zone” in their offices. Until, that is, closing time when we were cuffed and carted to the police station and – you guessed it! – charged with trespassing.

In the 90 or so days that have elapsed since our bloodless trespassing spree, I’ve had about four appearances in Chittenden’s District Court – each featuring a friendly greeting from T.J. Donovan himself. You see, he wants us to go away. And so each time we arrived he had an offer for us. First, he wanted us to plead “no contest” to the charges in exchange for 15 hours of community service. Next, he dropped it to 10 hours of community service. And, finally, he offered to dismiss the charges in exchange for 15 hours of community service for each charge. Deal.

As much as we wanted to take this to a jury trial, the annoying drives to Burlington, the scene at the courthouse and the very likeable Donovan made it too easy to accept the deal and wipe our records clean.

Let me tell you, Chittenden’s District Court is a sad place to be. It’s here where Vermont’s under-employed, under-paid and under-belly makes its appearance. Each morning the halls are lined with dozens of people who have been cited for what seems like mostly alcohol-related offenses: DUI’s, fights, thefts, etc.

The case for decriminalizing pot was on the front pages while we were making our court appearances. And, let me tell you, I have to agree with those who say that pot cases are not clogging the courts. I saw only one pot case come before the court, and it lasted about two minutes as the young man accepted the $200 fine as a plea deal before happily making his way to the exit.

But I still support decriminalization – mostly because it certainly seems like we’re focusing on the wrong drug. I didn’t hear one defendant, for example, declare that he put his face in a bong and then punched a wall, his spouse or the neighbor. But I heard several cases where folks hit the bars and then wreaked havoc on a loved one or a neighborhood. It really seemed like it was one, sad alcohol-related offense after another.

My days at the District Court are over now. I did my time – 30 hours of anti-war work on behalf of you, dear fellow citizens, including 5 hours of planning and implementing our little visit to Governor Douglas’s State of the State speech last month. Now, other than the trespassing case involving our little interruption of John Negroponte’s speech in St. Johnsbury in 2006 that is awaiting a hearing before the Vermont Supreme Court, my record is clean!

Which means: We’re in planning mode. Stay tuned.

{Photo Credit: The Fabulous NTodd}

Filed Under: activism, blog, essays & columns, us politics, vt politics, war & peace

The Dem Debate Charade

January 16, 2008 By M. Colby 4 Comments

How pathetic. The Dem debate last night, that is. The three blind mice – Clinton, Obama and Edwards – sat pontificating about change and justice for two hours while ignoring the fact that their Dem colleague, Dennis Kucinich, had just hours before lost an absurd court challenge to have his voice included in the debate. And not one peep from the “change agents” about the injustice happening right under their noses. Typical.

NBC “won” their efforts to exclude Kucinich from the debates by filing a true last-minute appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court seeking to overturn a ruling by a lower court judge that Kucinich must be included or the debates must be cancelled. But – get this – NBC declared in its brief to the higher court that its First Amendment rights were being violated by the ruling that forced them to include Kucinich.

And therein lies the problem, my friends: Corporations declaring Constitutional rights. Sorry, but that thumping sound you’re now hearing is Thomas Jefferson rolling around in his grave. Poor guy, he thought it was clear that Constitutional rights were for humans.

Indeed, NBC won because, according to a hundred years of court rulings, corporations are considered to have Constitutional rights. Thus, this nation has created thousands upon thousands of economic Frankenstein’s that have the same rights as humans but none of the responsibilities of citizenship or, for that matter, the moral compass of living, breathing beings. A corporation can, for example, assert its rights to produce a toxin but it will not go to jail – or feel sorrow – for the health and environmental mayhem that toxin causes. Like I said, economic Frankenstein’s.

Worse, we’ve become so accustomed to this absurd inequity of power between people and corporations today that few would find the sad irony in the fact that NBC’s First Amendment rights trumped the rights of a candidate to speak to the nation about his views. And don’t forget that NBC is operating on what is historically considered the “people’s airwaves.”

And so the doors were locked on Kucinich and the silence commenced. NBC certainly didn’t mention it. Worse, nor did the candidates. But they all carried on about change and the evils of special interests and the enormous power of corporations (Edwards) and the memories of MLK and the promise to fight for the little guy and girl. All without even a hint of a smile that should have acknowledged the absurdity of it all. These accomplices to the injustice of locking Kucinich out are going to “fight the power” and “change” America? Yeah right.

Good morning, America.

Filed Under: blog, essays & columns, media & politics, national media, us politics

The State of the Day (updated)

January 15, 2008 By M. Colby 2 Comments

Ladies and gentlemen, I have reviewed the day and I am pleased to report that the State of the Day is confused. A little of this. A little of that. But not much cohesion in purpose and/or goals. Therefore, a couple random bits:

I had this weird dream that a major media corporation was fighting in the courts to prevent a presidential candidate from appearing on its station’s debates. Oh wait, that’s no dream. Good morning, America.

Yep, MSNBC and its parent corporation, NBC, and the parent of that corporation, General Electric, are in a fast and furious legal battle with Dennis Kucinich over his involvement – or lack thereof – in the Nevada-based Democratic presidential debate. The network (a.k.a.: The Corporate Goliath) first ruled that Kucinich could, indeed, participate. But it quickly reversed itself and literally dis-invited Kucinich. He responded with a trip to the courts and won a ruling that ordered his involvement. And now The Corporate Goliath in control of what was in the good-old-days considered the “public’s airwaves” is now frantically trying to appeal the ruling in every legal venue it can think of.

This is just ugly. It’s repulsive enough that the NBC’s, CNN’s, Fox’s and the like routinely stifle true public debate on the public’s airwaves. But NBC has taken the exclusion of opinions to a new low by actually fighting court orders that are aimed at expanding public discourse.

There was a time, you know, when this nation’s founders feared just such a power grab and subsequent subversion of our democratic ideals. That’s why corporations were originally looked on very suspiciously. The original corporations were only granted a charter for specific time frames in order to complete specific functions deemed in the public’s interest (building a road, for example). When the task was done, the charter was gone.

There was an understandable concern that corporations – when left unchecked – could accumulate too much power and seek to monopolize not only the markets and the business environment but our democratic institutions as well. And here we are, in 2008, with a Goliath of a corporation that owns and controls everything from nuke plants to dishwashers to television and radio stations seeking to unilaterally decide which presidential candidates we should hear from. Like I said, it’s ugly.

This battle for inclusion in the debates could be Kucinich’s shining moment. Well, if you want to ignore his feisty insistence that we end the war now, provide health care for everyone and put an end to the corporate stranglehold over our political and cultural institutions. But Kucinich’s battle for inclusion should put a spotlight on just how rotten the system has become – from the corporate ownership of the media right down to how the votes are being counted. And, if people are listening, it should inspire the pursuit of redress.

But I’m guessing we’re not going to read or hear much about Kucinich’s Sisyphean battle with the corporate Goliath. Most likely because the other corporately-controlled media outlets aren’t going to be too interested in undermining the systemic control they are all enjoying. In other words, it’s their ball. Their ballpark. And their referees.

Good morning, America.

[Tuesday afternoon update: As of 5:00 p.m., the matter of Kucinich v. NBC is still in the courts. The debate is supposed to start in 4 hours and the lawyers are currently giving oral arguments to a judge about -- get this -- whether a candidate who is running a national campaign should be included in the debate. But we should all notice how Kucinich's Democratic opponents are handling the situation. In case you missed it, they're ignoring it and him. If they had a political justice bone in their bodies, Clinton, Obama and Edwards would be joining together and speaking out about it. Better yet, they'd be releasing a statement declaring that if one of the them is excluded, all of them are refusing to participate. But don't hold your breath. Oh baby, feel the change...]

–

Hillary on Meet the Press: Yikes. I saw it. We can’t possibly be looking for four more years of that bullshit, can we? The Clintons are robots. And they’re wired for only one thing: self-power. Worse, they think they are completely entitled to it. That’s why it’s so easy for them to slip and slide all over the political landscape in search of the most advantageous place to be. They can’t speak from their hearts because they are robots. I’m convinced of it.

During her Sunday appearance with Tim Russert, she was given one opportunity after another to look human and/or humble. But she refused. And, instead, talked in not-so-nice verbal circles that said this over and over: me, me, me, me. Worse, she wouldn’t let Russert talk on his own show. I am Hillary, hear me roar. And roar. And roar.

Until we change the channel. Click.

–

Rinse Your Media Brain.

–

Do Not Think Bad Thoughts.

–

Do Not Stick Your Finger in the Plum.

–

Wash Your Hands.

–

And Get Back to Work.

Filed Under: blog, media & politics, national media, us politics

Same. Old. Shit.

January 9, 2008 By M. Colby 5 Comments

Whew. Everything’s back to normal now. Hillary Clinton won. The Dems are acting like Dems. Change means status quo. The media is calling John McCain and Hillary Clinton the “comeback kids.” An apparent tear means more than a policy. Liberal bloggers are irrelevant. And, for course, none of us have to be bothered by the fact that we’re a nation at war. That’s sooooo last year. I feel so much better. Or, as Michael Stipe would say: “It’s the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.”

Excuse me while I wring my brain out like a filthy washcloth. Because I don’t want the names Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney and the term “agent of change” lingering around in my mind together. It’s kind of creepy. I don’t want to have the image of Chuck Norris and Mike Huckabee there anymore, either. And I’m tired of the predictions and the pontification and the prognostication. Because it’s pretty clear that no one really knows what the fuck is happening out there.

You’d think that after nearly everyone blew it yesterday by assuring us all that a tidal wave of Obama-mania was inevitable that they’d take a few days to be quiet and lick their wounds. No such luck. Instead, at the very moment the facts were telling them that they were as wrong as wrong could be they began to spin how they now know why they were wrong and how they are now going to be right. The business of bullshit is a growth industry.

But I’m rinsing it all out. Wash, rinse, and wring. Goodbye sordid morsels of ninniness. Well, other than to say: The Dems deserve Hillary. Let the rotten ship sail….

Filed Under: blog, media & politics, us politics

Tuesday Morning Linkdump

December 11, 2007 By M. Colby 1 Comment

Celebrification of Politics Update: Never mind all that complaining I did about celebrities and politics yesterday. Because today I see the light. And it’s shining from none other than Sean Penn. Yeah, the same Sean Penn who recently made the best movie I’ve seen in a long, long time: Into the Wild. As you’ll see in the video below, Penn is endorsing Dennis Kucinich. And he has to put up with some hecklers in the process. Notice how Penn deals with the heckler – it’s a bit different than the Ann Coulter method of squawking like a hawk child (or something like that).

Speaking of Penn, you can also read one of his recent screeds at CounterPunch by clicking here. Unlike Oprah, he’s talking about issues. Imagine that.

Iowa Update: My home state of Iowa is now less than a month away from delivering a shocker to the nation in the form of a surprise in its first-in-the-nation presidential caucus. On the Dem side, my guess is that the surprise will be a better-than-expected showing by John Edwards. He’s been able to be positive over the last several weeks as Obama and Clinton get down and dirty with one another. And, as history indicates, Iowans like the candidate who is positive at the end – even if it’s the long shot. Remember, in 2004 John Kerry was way behind Dean and Gephardt and then leaped over both of them when they started to sling the mud. (The “scream” came AFTER the caucus.)

Edwards is also said to have a very strong and deep organization in Iowa, led by a very enthusiastic union presence. That’s critical given the odd nature of the caucus process. Remember, Iowans don’t go into a voting both to quietly and anonymously mark their preference. Instead, they go into a room full of people and are instructed to publicly “caucus” with the others in the room who share their presidential choice. And if there aren’t enough of you with a certain candidate, you discuss amongst yourselves which of the leading candidates you’re going to join. Sooner or later, someone wins.

So if you’ve got a strong organization with deep support, these people will be strong, visible and vocal during the caucus. And if you’ve tried to remain focused on the issues and not cutting the throat of the other candidates, their supporters are more likely to swing into your camp during the caucus process. At this point, Edwards is hoping that the growing disdain between the Obama and Clinton camps will mean that he’s the second choice of both camps and, as a result of the caucus process, walk away with a victory. Got that?

The Obama campaign understands it. That’s why they’ve started going negative with Edwards, especially within the union crowd. And it wouldn’t surprise me to see Clinton follow suit real soon.

One thing’s for sure, Iowa is loving the attention. And the money. It’s better than ethanol.

Welch Update: It’s good to see that Vermont’s Congressman Peter Welch has come out against the latest Dem plan to trade some domestic funding for continued funding of the Iraq War. Hmm, I wonder if he had any thoughts about that Barre meeting with anti-war activists when he made that decision? Let’s hope Welch’s actions will match his rhetoric this time. But, more than that, let’s hope he does more than just vote against this ridiculous compromise. He could, for example, lobby the Dem leadership to scrap the entire plan. If he’d like some help leading a sit-in at Pelosi’s office, I think I know some folks who’d join him….

Defining Political Losers: Sue Allen of the Times Argus was one of the panelists on Vermont This Week last week. And while discussing next year’s campaign for governor, she said that Doug Racine had to be careful about entering the race and losing because another loss could ruin his political career. Okay, and why doesn’t the same standard apply to the Progressive Party’s Anthony Pollina? Pollina, of course, has done nothing but lose one campaign after another for one decade after another but media folks like Allen don’t bury his political career. Instead, they give his every utterance of “intent” a front-page story. But if Racine loses two races – after having won many more than that – he’ll be considered politically dead? I don’t get it.

Giuliani Update: Here’s a fun little summary of Giuliani’s appearance last Sunday on Meet the Press. I saw it and it was bizarre. Let’s hope the Republicans nominate him.

For more on Giuliani’s appearance, check out the Rude Pundit’s take.

Filed Under: blog, media & politics, us politics, vt media, vt politics

Oprah Nation

December 10, 2007 By M. Colby 3 Comments

Whew. Thank goodness for Oprah Winfrey. Not only does she keep me informed about which books to read, I can now count on her to tell me whom to vote for in the upcoming presidential election. I love you, Oprah. Now, please, will you send me one of those free cars?

Bah-fucking-humbug on the Oprah stuff. Or, if you’d prefer: Enough already. Like everyone else who allows their self to come into contact with the mainstream media, I’ve been bombarded with the news of Oprah and Obama. For days I just let the Double O blather just pass me by with little more than a mental smirk and a large dollop of hope that it would all go away soon. No such luck.

Finally – as in, today – I decided to actually read a couple articles on the Oprah/Obama phenomena. Perhaps I was missing something. Perhaps the Double O Express was fomenting a new revolution that would address the issues that I hold near and dear to my heart. Maybe Oprah and Obama were outlining a way to end the war. Or perhaps they were describing how an Obama administration would be implementing single-payer health care. No such luck.

Nope. This is all celebrity all the time – with nary an issue in sight. Well, unless you consider “hope” an issue. Consider, for example, the Chicago Tribune article from this morning on the Oprah/Obama gathering in South Carolina yesterday. First, the headline: “Obama, Winfrey Draw Thousands.” And if you dive into the article to try to find out what they spoke about to those thousands of people you’ll be as unsatisfied as I was.

The article doesn’t, for example, include the words “war,” “Iraq,” “health care,” “economy,” “environment,” “global warming,” or “education.” Nor does it even hint at any of the issues that accompany these words. Instead, readers get a sugary-sweet verbal concoction of words that describe the scene. Like this:

Obama drew energy from the crowd, stretching out his arm and holding the microphone to the audience to capture its roar. At times, the metal bleachers behind him rumbled under stomping feet.

Oh great, Obama’s the new Jimmy Swaggart.

And when the article finally stops drooling over the entire celebrification (my word, not yours) of the event, it offers this passing glance to the issues and/or issue messages:

On Sunday, Winfrey and Obama delivered messages rich with references to faith, historical moment and the possibilities ahead, in effect urging the crowd to set aside doubts.

Okay. I’m all for setting aside doubt. But can it be based upon more than the fact that the man running for president is standing next to Oprah Winfrey and saying things like “my campaign is about hope and setting aside doubt.” Silly me, I was looking for the substance.

But, as we all know, none of this was about substance. It was simply the latest and greatest episode of political celebrification. It was about the photo-op. It was about the bright lights. It was about the aura of the moment – the great spectacle of money and the pursuit of power coming together. Issues be damned. Because the issues would have ruined the moment.

Of course, none of this was meant for a Chicago Tribune or New York Times article. It was meant and designed for the photographers at the Tribune and the Times. And, of course, the television cameras. Snap, crackle, pop – soak up the moment. Believe! Be happy! Have faith! And don’t – whatever you do – get all bogged down by those buzz-killing issues!

I give.

Filed Under: blog, essays & columns, media & politics, us politics

Suffering Through the Dem Debate

November 16, 2007 By M. Colby 2 Comments

I did it. I watched my first presidential debate last night. And, boy, do I ever feel stupid. What a mess. What a spectacle of nothingness. What an intellectual cesspool. I should have followed the advice of a friend who upon hearing that I was going to watch the debates said that he’d rather “spend two hours making sculptures with the cat litter.” Indeed.

As we all know by now, it was the Dems’ turn to take the stage last night and bicker, posture and pretend that they had a plan to clean up the White House after Bush has trashed it better than any Frat-boy party could have dreamed of. “Oh fuck, it’s morning, dude.” Yes, indeed, it’s morning in America, as Reagan would say. But this time we’ve got one hell of a political and economic hangover.

First, I’ll play the game of punditry and announce the winner as I saw it: Dennis Kucinich. Hands down. The poor guy was the only one who apparently understood they were at a debate with serious issues on the table and serious citizens looking for some answers and some truth. And so he said he’d end the war now, he’d vote to impeach Bush now and he’d roll back the terrible trade policies that are crippling the working class. But before he could get too far into his substantive answers, the moderator of the silly affair, Wolf Blitzer (is that really his name?), would cut him off and give him the kind of brush off that the crazy uncles at next week’s Thanksgiving meals will be getting all across the nation.

Blitzer and the other so-called journalists at the event, Donner and Dasher – or whatever the hell their names were, did their best to keep the riff-raff like Kucinich out of the debate from the very beginning. The media had already billed this as a not-so-kinky threesome between Hillary “Will She Recover?” Clinton, Barack “I’m So Smooth I Don’t Have Opinions” Obama and John “The More I Lose the Closer to the Truth I get” Edwards. The rest of them were basically treated like speed bumps to slow down the pseudo-fighting between the big three.

Kucinich, for example, didn’t even get to respond to a question until almost 30 minutes into the two-hour debate. And that was when Blitzer asked each one to declare – yes or no! – if they’d be willing to support the eventual Dem nominee. Like little yes-only bobble-head dolls, every one of them quickly and enthusiastically answered yes – with the exception of Kucinich. His reply? “Only if they oppose war as an instrument of policy.” Oh my goodness, did someone fart? Get him out of the room! Or at least remind him that this is about posturing and preening, not principles, you fool.

I was just happy that Peter Welch wasn’t there. Imagine the melee he would have caused by stirring up the hundreds in attendance by huffing and puffing over the agenda and the waterboarding-like insistence that politicians answer a question with either “yes or no.” Perhaps he could learn a little something from Kucinich who dutifully played along but – gasp! – answered the “yes or no” question with a little creativity.

Kucinich also mentioned the “impeachment” word, too. It came while the rest of the dawdling Dems were splitting hairs and putting the audience to sleep over their various long-winded plans for stopping Bush & Cheney from going to war with Iran. But Kucinich cut to the chase: “Impeach them now!” Oh no, another fart in the room! Don’t worry, though, Blitzer cut him off, but not before the audience roared with approval. And then the rest of the candidates dutifully doused the passion in the room by carrying on as if the mention of impeachment never even came up. Never mind.

But I guess I’m breaking all the rules by not spending all my time mentioning Clinton, Obama and Edwards. Okay, here you go: Clinton is awful and the Dems are total and complete fools for thinking they are going to get anywhere with her. If she wins the nomination, the Clinton fatigue will be so high that inspiring the base will be a near-impossible task – especially without the Bush-man around to knock around. Sorry, but when you put Hillary against a fresh little Republican prick, she’s going to start sounding, looking and acting really, really old and tired. Well, unless the Republicans imitate the Dems by nominating the Fred Thompson corpse.

Enough with the Clintons. Enough with the Bushes. They’ve had a family member in the White House continuously since 1980. And if Hillary gets the Dem nod, the aristocratic repulsion coupled with her hawkish distaste to the liberal base will make it really hard to counter the right-wing pummeling she’ll be facing. Let’s face it, Hillary’s soooo yesterday. And the more she pulls Bill out to flack for her the more yesterday her campaign looks.

And then there’s Obama. Poor Obama. The guy entered this race with so much hope but now has that pathetic look about him that says one thing: I forgot who I am and what I believe. Sure, he’s got the poise and the stature but he’s been so manhandled by his DC-elite-handlers in the last year that he’s basically morphed into a robot. And when you’re knocked so far out of your own political orbit and the handlers, pollsters and consultants have so clearly taken over, you never know what to say or believe. The result? A passionless puddle of confusion. Thanks, handlers.

Finally, we’ve got the pretty boy, John Edwards. Ain’t he pretty? Wasn’t that a good idea to get that growth removed from his lip? It makes him even prettier. Oh, issues? Sorry, but Edwards seems to have one policy when it comes to the issues: move to the left every time he loses. And the more he loses, the more he moves to the left. Remember Edwards in 2004? He was the typical centrist southern Dem. You know, kind of like Lieberman with a drawl. But then he lost and then he moved to the left. And now he’s losing and he’s moving more to the left. And while I’ve obviously got no problem with his tippy-toeing to the left, he makes it look so trial lawyerish (read: contrived). Whatever it takes to sway that jury, huh? No thanks, I prefer a little authenticity with my political meal.

Oh yeah, the debate. I almost forgot. Or maybe I was trying to forget. Kucinich won. The American people lost. And Blitzer, Donner and Dasher need to check in with Santa.

Happy Friday.

Filed Under: blog, media & politics, national media, us politics

A Vote for Torture: Thanks, Dems

November 6, 2007 By M. Colby Leave a Comment

Ugh. There they go again. The Dems, that is. The party that holds no moral or strategic compass. Proving, once again, that they’re more a funeral than a party, the Dem-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee voted just hours ago to approve the nomination of Michael Mukasey to be Bush’s Attorney General. In a vote of 11-8, with Dem Senators Feinstein and Schumer tipping the scales by joining the Republican minority, the man who refused to acknowledge that waterboarding is torture is now on his way to becoming the nation’s top law enforcement official. Thanks Dems!

On the good news side, we owe a special note of thanks to our own Senator Bernie Sanders who stepped up and sounded off against Mukasey shortly after the leader of the anti-Mukasey movement in the Senate, Russ Feingold, got the ball rolling. And Bernie’s early and unequivocal opposition to Mukasey certainly led to Senator Patrick Leahy’s eventual – and more tortured than it had to be – opposition to the appointment. But, let’s be honest, this vote was a no-brainer for anyone who truly believes in the Constitution and loves this country.

Sadly, it’s another example of the false hopes provided by a Dem Party that cannot hold its act together on the most basic issues of justice. Remember when we were all told during the last election cycle that a Dem-majority in Congress would be an essential roadblock to the Bush regime? Never mind.

In case you didn’t notice, the two Dem defectors – Feinstein and Schumer — are big-time political players from the very liberal states of California and New York. Usually when the Dems lose on something like this they pull out their “big tent” nonsense, subtly blaming those dastardly southern-conservative-Dems. Not this time. Nope, this political failure is the result of the liberal base of the party.

And what’s that sound you hear? Oh, that’s the sound of the wind being emptied from the sails of the grassroots activists who were still clinging to the notion that the Dems would finally stand up to Bush. Cynicism, meet the voters. And voters, please remember this in 2008.

Shame on them.

Filed Under: blog, us politics, vt politics

Friday Random Blogging (Part Two: Blackwater & Welch Edition)

October 26, 2007 By M. Colby 3 Comments

Damn, I wish I would have gotten together with some of my buddies on September 12, 2001 and made this video. Who knew that it would result in nearly a billion dollars in governmental “security” contracts? Frankly, it does look like something Paul Beaudry and his buddies at True North Radio would have put together while working themselves into a frenzy over some big, scary, lurking (and liberal!) danger out there. But, then again, it also looks like the kind of stuff I see in Worcester everyday. Let’s face it, those Blackwater guys are financial geniuses to be able to turn this low-rent video into a billion dollars worth of taxpayer loot.

Speaking of Blackwater, our man in Washington, Congressman Peter Welch, is getting a lot of traction for his sorta-kinda-maybe tough talk on Blackwater. As you’ll recall from yesterday, Welch is responding to the drunken murderous actions by these mercenary thugs by calling for “more governmental oversight” of them. Oh baby, that’ll show ‘em.

But how does our congressman respond to people peacefully showing up to his office seeking to speak with him: Arrest them! Yep, handcuffs and all.

So let’s review Welch’s political week: Oversight for Blackwater. Handcuffs for peace activists.

But don’t expect to hear any kind of meaningful discussion about this in the Vermont blogosphere. Here, for example, is what happened over at Freyne’s blog after he did a rather fine job of reporting on the Welch protest. Um, children, can we get back to the issue, please? There is a war going on. And our congressmen are continuously voting to fund it.

Damn, there I go again – getting all rude by mentioning the issues.

Filed Under: blog, media & politics, us politics, vt media, vt politics, war & peace