Helping You Get the Most Out of Your Misery






This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Sunday, October 01, 2006



My wife was out of the house fairly early this morning, snapping pictures of a race, which left me to my own devices for a few hours, never a good thing, especially on a Sunday morning when I'm likely to tune in to This Week with George Stephanopoulos and start yelling at the TV screen. Which I did. Then I watched Meet the Press.

And so I find myself with all sorts of anger which thwacking the television with a towel didn't dissipate. I'm so goddamn disgusted with so much that's going on with our government right now that I could puke. In fact, excuse me a moment, I think I'm going to go do just that.

[Two minute puke break.]

Ah. Now I feel refreshed. And I'd totally forgotten that I ate walnuts last night.

Anyway, the efforts by Republicans to hang onto their congressional majority are just astonishing. First, there's the usual partisan sniping. Like Bush on Thursday calling the Democrats the "party of Cut and Run" and bitching that they're "...endless[ly] second-guessing" him. Hey! Smirky McDumbfuck! That's their fucking job! If nobody's allowed to second-guess you, then we've got a monarchy on our hands. And as much I know you'd love to have unquestionable sovereignty, the rest of the world figured out what a bad idea that was around the time they signed the Magna Carta.

And the GOP knows that the usual strategy of questioning the patriotism of anyone who doesn't march in lock-step with the president isn't going to work this time. Which is why--and this may very well be just my paranoid delusion, but damned if I don't believe it--we had that "Republican Rebellion" over terror legislation that ended up with Bush getting exactly what he wanted. You can say that they actually compromised until you're blue in the face, but the bottom line is that Bush and co. have the ability to define torture as they see fit without worrying about having to face the consequences.

Which is why the whole thing seems to me like yet another bit of well-orchestrated chicanery from Karl Rove, just like 2004's 11-state "defense of marriage" push. Republicans hurting from close association with an unpopular president? Make it seem like they're standing up to him! Feh.

The whole thing might be pointless anyway. I read an article in the latest Atlantic Monthly about whether it might be better for the Democrats to lose this election. And I can see what the author was saying; the dems might benefit more from gaining just a few seats and playing the spoilers for another two years, during which things are probably going to get worse in the country anyway, which would keep the blame firmly on the right. The author spoke to a number of Democratic strategists who told him that's exactly what the party ought to do.

Not sure how I feel about that idea. I mean, in those two years, Democratic legislators could conceivably start to grow spines and have real momentum heading into 2008. It might also give them some time to find actual goddamn leadership. And direction. And ideas. On the other hand, throwing an election is just plain creepy.

Of course, the Democrats are probably too incompetent to successfully lose. Even with miniscule approval ratings for Bush; even with the whole Mark Foley-as-pederast thing blowing up all over the place; even with Senators like Maccaca-head in Virginia practically giving away their seats, the dems will probably find a way to blow it.

Which may explain why I vote for Democrats. I mean, they're kind of the Cleveland Indians of politics.