"and when the radical priest come and get me released we were all on the cover of Newsweek"
Paul Simon "Me and Julio Down by the Schoolyard"
So what's the over/under on how many months it will take for Paula Broadwell to be on Celebrity Apprentice? She has already begun her walk of shame through the media gauntlet. She was lampooned by Bill Maher, mercilessly mocked by Saturday Night Live (seriously, even I felt bad for her) and been shredded by every late night comic with a microphone. I believe the correct phrase is "being Lewinskyed". Titling her book about General David Patraeus "All In" is just the cherry on the sundae.
Still, it's not as if Ms. Broadwell is blameless. Not only was she setting up light housekeeping with America's most popular war hero in a tent in Kabul, she wanted the world to know it. No one over the age of seven who is trying to keep a secret puts anything incriminating in email. Any Afghan goat herder will tell you that. Ms. Broadwell is many things but dumb is not among them. Being done in by a rogue FBI agent in Florida who was trying to score a date with Tampa gadfly Jill Kelly was bad luck but inevitable. (Ms. Kelly is described as a "Tampa socialite" which means that she always scores the best table at the International House of Pancakes.) Nevertheless Paula's coupling with Patraeus would have come out soon enough. Ms. Kelly meanwhile, was also interested in outing her own flirtation with her four-star fan boy General John Allen. If you're trying to keep a relationship secret, you don't invite the FBI to snoop through your unmentionable internet correspondence. (See also "goat herder" above.)
General Allen, who thus far appears to have confined his amorous affectations to the written word, was nonetheless able to author some 20,000 pages of flirtatious fluff over the last year or so. (If Gen Allen's career in the Marines should fizzle, he has a promising future as a ghost writer for E L James, author of "50 Shades of Grey".) Apparently, commanding the coalition forces in Afghanistan is not as time consuming as one would suppose. Additionally, what is it about the job of commanding the International Security Assistance force in Afghanistan that causes dedicated military commanders to wander off the marital reservation? Something in the water? Certainly not the burlap covered natives. Why would a commander with such a sterling reputation as General Allen suddenly feel the need to wear out a keyboard sending bon mots to a middle-aged married tootsie in Florida? Did he not have Beyonce's email address?
Some things are clear: in a post 9-11 world, the FBI must be reminded that the Patriot Act does not grant them unlimited access to personal correspondence, especially in furtherance of one's amorous ambitions. Hoover is dead. Also, America is reminded once again that great men are capable of horrid judgement where women are concerned. Had General Patraeus held any other job but head of the CIA, his indiscretions might have been overlooked. We're not France yet. As it is we have lost a capable leader to an unfortunate sexual liaison that was unworthy of him. Patraeus can recover (he's only 60) but for the moment he is consigned to warming the wasteland bench next to Anthony Weiner.
And so, what have we learned from this farce? 1) Every general who receives a fourth star should be required to read every news report of L'affaire Patraeus and then sign a pledge to keep his pants zipped. 2) For as long as it lasts, the conduct of the War in Afghanistan must be commanded from a mess hall in Fort Lennard Wood, Missouri. Afghanistan is clearly too sexy for senior officers. 3) The city of Tampa must be declared off-limits to field grade officers and above. 4) All correspondence from general officers must be cleared by their wives, mothers and the Legion of Decency. 5) If your life story needs a ghostwriter, call Casper.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
...or are Californians less concerned with the quality of their food than the quality of their drugs?
For those of you out there with actual lives, you may not have noticed a ballot proposition that was voted down in California last election day. Titled Prop 37, (catchy, eh?) the proposal would have required companies that sell packaged foods in California to label any product that contained genetically modified ingredients. On the face of it, that doesn't sound like such a bad idea. With some exceptions (hot dogs, brats, Hormel corn beef hash come to mind) it might be nice to know what Kellogg's is putting in my Frosted Flakes and what John Tyson is stuffing in his chickens. Allowing consumers to make informed choices should not require complex legislation.
Ah but you're not in agri-business. Turns out that Monsanto, Conagra, Kellogg's and several other corporate giants have an enormous stake in how information on ingredients is disseminated. Quite simply they don't think it's any of your business and they don't want you to know. More to the point, these companies spent many millions of dollars to defeat Prop 37. Their attitude is simple, shut up and buy that peanut butter, and jelly and bread. The stuff is perfectly safe....take our word for it. Actually, you'll have to because we're not telling you jack. Note: California, a state known for its progressive attitudes and hippie ideals has twice been flipped by advertising campaigns. Remember they also voted against gay marriage thanks to the kill-joy Mormons and their deep pockets. Californians are either very impressionable or the pot is rendering them very pliable.
As anyone who has ever been stuck in a doctor's office reading a magazine can tell you, virtually all of the corn and soy in America is genetically modified. The crops have been altered to make them more resistant to bugs and disease. So far as anyone knows, modifications have not damaged either the nutritional content of the grains nor rendered them unfit for consumption. The operative phrase being "so far as anyone knows". So called frankenfood is banned in much of Europe simply because no one knows if screwing with the DNA of a wheat plant can, over time, cause shriveled testicles in humans or cause one's teeth to rot. Except for the Brits who apparently aren't concerned about the teeth thing, Europeans pay attention to such matters. In America we are a more trusting lot.
As part of the so-called "food movement" some Californians got together and decided that whether or not you feed GMO to your toddlers should be a choice. Unlike the paternal regulations imposed by Father Bloomberg in New York, no one in California was trying to ban anything. Prop 37 only asked (OK, ordered) big agri-biz to share information about what they were loading into our Pillsbury Cornbread Mix. From the reaction engendered from the agri-folks you would have thought that they were going to be required to make asparagus ice cream and brussel sprout cola. Quotes like " Prop 37 will use the coercive power of the state to strong-arm Americans into eating fashionably" appeared in ads and op-edits throughout the state. Who says consultants don't earn their fees?
In any event, the "none of your GD business" forces were triumphant. Like the rest of us, Californians will continue to stuff their faces with god-knows-what made god-knows-how. We will continue to "trust" big agri. That would be the same big agri that needed laws before they would pasteurize milk, specify on the label the ingredients and nutritional content of packaged foods and, allow beef and chickens to be inspected for e coli and salmonella. I'm confident that each one of these draconian restrictions to fair trade were met with the same cries of strong-arming and coercive power.
But we must remember that big agri-business is our friend. They provide the finest quality foods at the lowest possible prices. And because they only have our best interest at heart we will try to forget Tyson Foods dumping insane quantities of waste products into the groundwater in Missouri and Kentucky, or JB Swift Meats record of recalls for e coli or their use of thousands of illegal workers, or The Kellogg's recall of 28 million boxes of breakfast cereal due to contamination by (write this down) 2-methylnaphthalene. Even the EPA isn't sure about this stuff. And so, until the people of California or some other state rise up and demand to know what's in their Wheaties, we will all paraphrase the Dixie Chicks and "shut up and eat".
Ah but you're not in agri-business. Turns out that Monsanto, Conagra, Kellogg's and several other corporate giants have an enormous stake in how information on ingredients is disseminated. Quite simply they don't think it's any of your business and they don't want you to know. More to the point, these companies spent many millions of dollars to defeat Prop 37. Their attitude is simple, shut up and buy that peanut butter, and jelly and bread. The stuff is perfectly safe....take our word for it. Actually, you'll have to because we're not telling you jack. Note: California, a state known for its progressive attitudes and hippie ideals has twice been flipped by advertising campaigns. Remember they also voted against gay marriage thanks to the kill-joy Mormons and their deep pockets. Californians are either very impressionable or the pot is rendering them very pliable.
As anyone who has ever been stuck in a doctor's office reading a magazine can tell you, virtually all of the corn and soy in America is genetically modified. The crops have been altered to make them more resistant to bugs and disease. So far as anyone knows, modifications have not damaged either the nutritional content of the grains nor rendered them unfit for consumption. The operative phrase being "so far as anyone knows". So called frankenfood is banned in much of Europe simply because no one knows if screwing with the DNA of a wheat plant can, over time, cause shriveled testicles in humans or cause one's teeth to rot. Except for the Brits who apparently aren't concerned about the teeth thing, Europeans pay attention to such matters. In America we are a more trusting lot.
As part of the so-called "food movement" some Californians got together and decided that whether or not you feed GMO to your toddlers should be a choice. Unlike the paternal regulations imposed by Father Bloomberg in New York, no one in California was trying to ban anything. Prop 37 only asked (OK, ordered) big agri-biz to share information about what they were loading into our Pillsbury Cornbread Mix. From the reaction engendered from the agri-folks you would have thought that they were going to be required to make asparagus ice cream and brussel sprout cola. Quotes like " Prop 37 will use the coercive power of the state to strong-arm Americans into eating fashionably" appeared in ads and op-edits throughout the state. Who says consultants don't earn their fees?
In any event, the "none of your GD business" forces were triumphant. Like the rest of us, Californians will continue to stuff their faces with god-knows-what made god-knows-how. We will continue to "trust" big agri. That would be the same big agri that needed laws before they would pasteurize milk, specify on the label the ingredients and nutritional content of packaged foods and, allow beef and chickens to be inspected for e coli and salmonella. I'm confident that each one of these draconian restrictions to fair trade were met with the same cries of strong-arming and coercive power.
But we must remember that big agri-business is our friend. They provide the finest quality foods at the lowest possible prices. And because they only have our best interest at heart we will try to forget Tyson Foods dumping insane quantities of waste products into the groundwater in Missouri and Kentucky, or JB Swift Meats record of recalls for e coli or their use of thousands of illegal workers, or The Kellogg's recall of 28 million boxes of breakfast cereal due to contamination by (write this down) 2-methylnaphthalene. Even the EPA isn't sure about this stuff. And so, until the people of California or some other state rise up and demand to know what's in their Wheaties, we will all paraphrase the Dixie Chicks and "shut up and eat".
Sunday, November 11, 2012
...or can reading editorials make you wonder who actually won the election?
Gloating is unseemly and undignified. We here at isitjustme would never lower ourselves to revel in the misfortune of others. Raising our hands to our nose and wiggling our fingers at a vanquished opponent is not our style. Mono-digital salutes or (shudder!) mooning a fallen adversary is not the cut of our jib. The extended hand of good fellowship and the acknowledgement of a contest well played will always be our preferred mode of operation. In any event there is one fact upon which both sides can agree: no one gives a shit how Florida went.
That said, we can hardly be faulted for the slight tingle one feels as you watch your defeated adversary begin to contemplate the miscalculations and blunders that caused him to finish second in a two-person contest. Ah schadenfreude! Schadenfreude is a German word for taking pleasure in the pain of others. Is anyone surprised that the Germans have a word for this? So it was with a happy heart that I flipped to the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal that I might bask in that dish best served cold. I was however, doomed to disappointment. Not only was there no recrimination, no soul-searching and no hand wringing but, based upon what I read, I was not even sure who had won.
I began with Fred Barnes, a smart savvy Conservative journalist and political pundit whose primary claim to fame is that he predicted the election of John McCain for president in 2008. Polls and prognosticators be damned, Fred just had a feeling. Anyway, Mr. Barnes' take on the events of Nov 6 were echoed in most of what I read from Paul Gigot, guru of the Journal's edit page, Dan Henninger, political columnist and even-handed observer and Karl Rove, former GWB Rasputin and current sycophant on Fox News. (I'm surprised Rove had time to write the column. I imagined he was still in the Fox newsroom explaining to Chris Wallace why it was still too early to call Ohio for Obama.)
Barnes and Co. mostly began by congratulating President Obama for running one of the slickest, nastiest, unprincipled and ruthless campaigns this side of Vladimir Putin. This from the gang that maligned John Kerry for his military service, intimating he bought his purple hearts at Target. The Democrats were praised for painting Mitt Romney as an out-of-touch elitist with too much wealth and too little charm or empathy. Gee, I don't know why the Democrats bothered. Romney was doing a marvelous job of painting that picture all on his own. (When your wife has to go on television and tell the world you're funny, you're probably not.)
Barnes went on to say that this election proved nothing and left us exactly where we were before. That's not entirely true. We learned that the American people are a tad smarter that we thought. They grasped the distinction between job-creator and corporate shark. They showed an astute understanding of candidates who put people over profit. They rejected a candidate who, in an attempt to stand for everything, stood for nothing. Mitt Romney's religion never became an issue but his beliefs were there for all to see.
George Will in the Washington Post said that the Republicans were victims of demography. I couldn't agree more but regardless of what Jan Brewer of Arizona says all those Latinos didn't just arrive on Nov 6th. The issue isn't whether minorities are coddled by Democrats. It's that they are constantly denigrated by Republicans. "Hey gringo, you don't have to kiss my ass, just stop kicking it."
Naturally, most of the writers I read were eager to cast aspersions on everyone but their candidate. It was the New York Times' fault. It was Hurricane Sandy. It was that hotel employee in S. Florida who deceitfully taped Gov. Romney reminding his rich backers about the difference between "us" and "them". It was Romney's dog for complaining to The Huffington Post about his travel accommodations on a vacation. Ungrateful cur. It was Ann Romney's horse for finishing poorly at the Olympics.
Why is no one on the Right saying the obvious: it's impossible to present yourself as a moderate in Massachusetts, a neocon nut-job in a primary and a moderate in a general election. Don't take my word for it. Ask the small army of too-liberal Democrats who ran against Nixon, Reagan, and Bush 41. It wasn't until Bill Clinton that the Democrats got the message. The tea party doesn't need to be abolished (good luck with that) they need to be restrained.
OK enough of this. The election is over and we can now go back to gridlock in Congress. As for me, I'm on my way out to buy a copy of The Weekly Standard. Maybe I'll moon the RNC on the way home.
That said, we can hardly be faulted for the slight tingle one feels as you watch your defeated adversary begin to contemplate the miscalculations and blunders that caused him to finish second in a two-person contest. Ah schadenfreude! Schadenfreude is a German word for taking pleasure in the pain of others. Is anyone surprised that the Germans have a word for this? So it was with a happy heart that I flipped to the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal that I might bask in that dish best served cold. I was however, doomed to disappointment. Not only was there no recrimination, no soul-searching and no hand wringing but, based upon what I read, I was not even sure who had won.
I began with Fred Barnes, a smart savvy Conservative journalist and political pundit whose primary claim to fame is that he predicted the election of John McCain for president in 2008. Polls and prognosticators be damned, Fred just had a feeling. Anyway, Mr. Barnes' take on the events of Nov 6 were echoed in most of what I read from Paul Gigot, guru of the Journal's edit page, Dan Henninger, political columnist and even-handed observer and Karl Rove, former GWB Rasputin and current sycophant on Fox News. (I'm surprised Rove had time to write the column. I imagined he was still in the Fox newsroom explaining to Chris Wallace why it was still too early to call Ohio for Obama.)
Barnes and Co. mostly began by congratulating President Obama for running one of the slickest, nastiest, unprincipled and ruthless campaigns this side of Vladimir Putin. This from the gang that maligned John Kerry for his military service, intimating he bought his purple hearts at Target. The Democrats were praised for painting Mitt Romney as an out-of-touch elitist with too much wealth and too little charm or empathy. Gee, I don't know why the Democrats bothered. Romney was doing a marvelous job of painting that picture all on his own. (When your wife has to go on television and tell the world you're funny, you're probably not.)
Barnes went on to say that this election proved nothing and left us exactly where we were before. That's not entirely true. We learned that the American people are a tad smarter that we thought. They grasped the distinction between job-creator and corporate shark. They showed an astute understanding of candidates who put people over profit. They rejected a candidate who, in an attempt to stand for everything, stood for nothing. Mitt Romney's religion never became an issue but his beliefs were there for all to see.
George Will in the Washington Post said that the Republicans were victims of demography. I couldn't agree more but regardless of what Jan Brewer of Arizona says all those Latinos didn't just arrive on Nov 6th. The issue isn't whether minorities are coddled by Democrats. It's that they are constantly denigrated by Republicans. "Hey gringo, you don't have to kiss my ass, just stop kicking it."
Naturally, most of the writers I read were eager to cast aspersions on everyone but their candidate. It was the New York Times' fault. It was Hurricane Sandy. It was that hotel employee in S. Florida who deceitfully taped Gov. Romney reminding his rich backers about the difference between "us" and "them". It was Romney's dog for complaining to The Huffington Post about his travel accommodations on a vacation. Ungrateful cur. It was Ann Romney's horse for finishing poorly at the Olympics.
Why is no one on the Right saying the obvious: it's impossible to present yourself as a moderate in Massachusetts, a neocon nut-job in a primary and a moderate in a general election. Don't take my word for it. Ask the small army of too-liberal Democrats who ran against Nixon, Reagan, and Bush 41. It wasn't until Bill Clinton that the Democrats got the message. The tea party doesn't need to be abolished (good luck with that) they need to be restrained.
OK enough of this. The election is over and we can now go back to gridlock in Congress. As for me, I'm on my way out to buy a copy of The Weekly Standard. Maybe I'll moon the RNC on the way home.
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
...or are Presidential elections like passing a kidney stone?
Forget the Presidential election outcome. Anyone paying the slightest attention to Nate Silver and the 528 Blog knew how this would play out. Chris Christie punctured Mitt Romney's last victory balloon when he complimented Barack Obama for being Presidential. Show over. Check please.
Whether you approve of the results of "Campaign 2012, The Race For the White House" or not, you cannot help but be impressed/disheartened by the choices made in the Congressional races. At a time when the entire country is complaining about the Keystone Cops that make up the House and Senate (15% approval rating the last time I looked) well over 300 House members will be reelected. In the Senate it's about 60%. So why does the entire country want every Senator and Congressman replaced..except theirs? How is it that no one gets the fact that if you continue to send the same ideologues back to the Congress, you will continue to get the same gridlock? (see also "Definition of Madness")
The echos of Mitt Romney's concession speech were still rattling around that Boston convention hall when John Boehner stated that the return of a Republican majority to the House of Representatives was a clear signal that the American people do not want any tax increase. Really? That's your takeaway? Jim DeMint of South Carolina has already come out in opposition to any compromise with Democrats. An attitude like that should get you a time-out not a Senate seat. Gentlemen, the American people want compromise. They want governance. They want something, anything but what we have had for the last two years. No one is suggesting that Republicans abandon their principles but how is it that so many Congresspeople missed the class in first grade when we were told that to get something you have to give something. When did give and take become all or nothing?
Yes, it's true that isitjustme leans a bit to the left but, if you're honest about it you must admit that all the obstructionism is coming from the Right. That enormous ass-hat Richard Mourdock stated flatly in his acceptance speech as GOP candidate for Senator from Indiana that his idea of compromise was my way or no way. Thankfully Indiana was unimpressed. More about him later. Paul Ryan retained his House seat even after admitting to: 1) requesting TARP money, 2) voting for Stimulus, 3) voting for Medicare part D and, he voted for the auto industry bailout. These are not Teabagger positions and in another year might earn you a primary challenge from the far right of your party. Nevertheless, Ryan voted to serve his conscience and his party. We call that governing.
Being an elected official means representing the best interests of both your constituents and your country. Hell, the Tea Party only exists because a substantial group of Americans felt that the government no longer represented them. The problem arose when the neocons hijacked the movement and molded the argument into one about bigotry, small-mindedness and Christian fanaticism.
But I digress.
There were a few bright spots in the numbers from Tuesday. The two most disreputable Senate candidates: Todd Akin of Missouri and the aforementioned Richard Mourdock of Indiana were defeated in races that should never have been close.
Akin, a Congressman from suburban St. Louis, was running against Democratic incumbent Claire McCaskill. McCaskill was elected in the big Democratic sweep of 2006 but, she's a Democrat in Missouri. Just to help the GOP along, she even had a minor scandal involving a private plane and who was paying for the gas. Akin is a tea bagger neocon in a conservative state. The Republican Senate Caucus was warming a chair for Mr. Akin's expected arrival in 2013. He was a lock...until he was interviewed in August on KTVI-TV St. Louis and gave his now-famous "legitimate rape" soliloquy. McCaskill immediately stopped packing up her office and the GOP ran from Akin as if he had fallen into a septic tank. He still managed almost 40% of the vote, presumably none of those votes were from rape victims or doctors.
Richard Mourdock took a slightly different road to the nomination but managed the same moronic gaff as Mr. Akin. Mourdock had beaten the hugely popular and long serving incumbent from Indiana, Richard Lugar in a nasty primary. Mourdock was the teabagger darling who eschewed compromise and mocked Sen. Lugar as the sell-out appeaser he was. (To be fair, Lugar is 80 years old and hasn't maintained a residence in Indiana since 1977.) Indiana went for Obama in 2008 but, by and large is a fairly conservative red state. His opponent was Joe Donnelly, a Democrat in name only. Donnelly is anti-abortion, pro gun nut, anti immigrant, etc. The teabaggers must have been delirious. Anyway, Mr. Mourdock, following in the footsteps of Smilin' Todd Akin allowed that rape, if it resulted in a pregnancy, was somehow God's will. Joe Donnelly immediately ran to the nearest Catholic Church and made a novena of thanks. God's will also included the defeat of Richard Mourdock at the polls on Tuesday.
So my friends, what have we learned from this exercise in civic responsibility? Following the election of 2008 when bizarro candidates like Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell were sent packing by the electorate, the GOP learned exactly nothing. Candidates like Akin and Mourdock will continue to win GOP primaries and, if they can learn to govern their mouths, get elected. Nevertheless we should be grateful to the good people of Missouri and Indiana for coming to their senses and realizing that teabagger candidates are toxic. They produce only two things: fodder for the nightly news and Democratic victories. Good riddance.
Whether you approve of the results of "Campaign 2012, The Race For the White House" or not, you cannot help but be impressed/disheartened by the choices made in the Congressional races. At a time when the entire country is complaining about the Keystone Cops that make up the House and Senate (15% approval rating the last time I looked) well over 300 House members will be reelected. In the Senate it's about 60%. So why does the entire country want every Senator and Congressman replaced..except theirs? How is it that no one gets the fact that if you continue to send the same ideologues back to the Congress, you will continue to get the same gridlock? (see also "Definition of Madness")
The echos of Mitt Romney's concession speech were still rattling around that Boston convention hall when John Boehner stated that the return of a Republican majority to the House of Representatives was a clear signal that the American people do not want any tax increase. Really? That's your takeaway? Jim DeMint of South Carolina has already come out in opposition to any compromise with Democrats. An attitude like that should get you a time-out not a Senate seat. Gentlemen, the American people want compromise. They want governance. They want something, anything but what we have had for the last two years. No one is suggesting that Republicans abandon their principles but how is it that so many Congresspeople missed the class in first grade when we were told that to get something you have to give something. When did give and take become all or nothing?
Yes, it's true that isitjustme leans a bit to the left but, if you're honest about it you must admit that all the obstructionism is coming from the Right. That enormous ass-hat Richard Mourdock stated flatly in his acceptance speech as GOP candidate for Senator from Indiana that his idea of compromise was my way or no way. Thankfully Indiana was unimpressed. More about him later. Paul Ryan retained his House seat even after admitting to: 1) requesting TARP money, 2) voting for Stimulus, 3) voting for Medicare part D and, he voted for the auto industry bailout. These are not Teabagger positions and in another year might earn you a primary challenge from the far right of your party. Nevertheless, Ryan voted to serve his conscience and his party. We call that governing.
Being an elected official means representing the best interests of both your constituents and your country. Hell, the Tea Party only exists because a substantial group of Americans felt that the government no longer represented them. The problem arose when the neocons hijacked the movement and molded the argument into one about bigotry, small-mindedness and Christian fanaticism.
But I digress.
There were a few bright spots in the numbers from Tuesday. The two most disreputable Senate candidates: Todd Akin of Missouri and the aforementioned Richard Mourdock of Indiana were defeated in races that should never have been close.
Akin, a Congressman from suburban St. Louis, was running against Democratic incumbent Claire McCaskill. McCaskill was elected in the big Democratic sweep of 2006 but, she's a Democrat in Missouri. Just to help the GOP along, she even had a minor scandal involving a private plane and who was paying for the gas. Akin is a tea bagger neocon in a conservative state. The Republican Senate Caucus was warming a chair for Mr. Akin's expected arrival in 2013. He was a lock...until he was interviewed in August on KTVI-TV St. Louis and gave his now-famous "legitimate rape" soliloquy. McCaskill immediately stopped packing up her office and the GOP ran from Akin as if he had fallen into a septic tank. He still managed almost 40% of the vote, presumably none of those votes were from rape victims or doctors.
Richard Mourdock took a slightly different road to the nomination but managed the same moronic gaff as Mr. Akin. Mourdock had beaten the hugely popular and long serving incumbent from Indiana, Richard Lugar in a nasty primary. Mourdock was the teabagger darling who eschewed compromise and mocked Sen. Lugar as the sell-out appeaser he was. (To be fair, Lugar is 80 years old and hasn't maintained a residence in Indiana since 1977.) Indiana went for Obama in 2008 but, by and large is a fairly conservative red state. His opponent was Joe Donnelly, a Democrat in name only. Donnelly is anti-abortion, pro gun nut, anti immigrant, etc. The teabaggers must have been delirious. Anyway, Mr. Mourdock, following in the footsteps of Smilin' Todd Akin allowed that rape, if it resulted in a pregnancy, was somehow God's will. Joe Donnelly immediately ran to the nearest Catholic Church and made a novena of thanks. God's will also included the defeat of Richard Mourdock at the polls on Tuesday.
So my friends, what have we learned from this exercise in civic responsibility? Following the election of 2008 when bizarro candidates like Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell were sent packing by the electorate, the GOP learned exactly nothing. Candidates like Akin and Mourdock will continue to win GOP primaries and, if they can learn to govern their mouths, get elected. Nevertheless we should be grateful to the good people of Missouri and Indiana for coming to their senses and realizing that teabagger candidates are toxic. They produce only two things: fodder for the nightly news and Democratic victories. Good riddance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)