The Rake Magazine

Liberals are all "Mr. Poopy Pants"

Thanks to Cheri Pierson Yecke for truly raising the level of political discourse on not just the local, but even the national scene, in today's Strib.

It seems Cheri, who undoubtedly is still smarting from being called "Yucky" when she was up for the State Education Commissioner job, takes all us liberals to task for remarking that Linda Tripp, Condi Rice and our own local fave Katherine Kersten, are, shall we say, no rivals for Nicole Kidman.

Now let's examine where these observations may have come from. Let's pretend we haven't heard the numerous Republican references to the girth of Hillary Clinton's ankles, and just admit that liberals (we are people after all, despite what Republicans think) have a bias against ugly.

But I would argue that the ugly bias against Tripp, Rice and Kersten is more than skin deep.

Tripp betrayed a friend's confidence for her own financial gain, (which, incidentally, she used to pay for plastic surgery,) and made a private act between consenting adults tabloid fodder, and gave the Republican attack dogs a bone after they'd been unable to find Clinton actually doing anything impeachable despite six years of trying.

Now, Rice. Yes she did get a Ph.D. when very young, as Yecke points out, but wasn't it she who both ignored the intelligence memo "Bin Laden determined to attack within the U.S." and then particpated in the lies that got us into Iraq? I wonder if all the disfigured American soldiers and Iraqi children think that's ugly?

Then, there's Kersten. Not much to say there, except every one knows her unfounded attacks and unreported columns set a new low for journalistic standards everytime she bleats.

What Yecke should keep in mind is that, when you shovel the prodigious quantities of horse dung that these three do, it's inevitable that some will splatter all the way up to the face. And that's hard not to notice.

What comes out of the south end of a north-bound whale?

The Pioneer Press (yeah we do read it occasionally, but mostly for nostalgic reasons--it used to be quite good before being taken over by the corporate creeps) had a story today about Mark Kennedy's recent voting record. (Ok, it was from the Associated Press, but at least the PP posted it.)

At any rate, the reporter put two and two together and came up with the theory that Kennedy was burnishing his image as a compassionate conservative and environmentalist to position himself to run for Senate in 2006.

The story got it right. Kennedy is a slimy guy. You'll notice by the vote totals that his vote would not have made any difference in the eventual outcome. It's an old trick for the party leadership to allow "defections" by members in swing districts so they can say they actually voted for stuff...although they wouldn't have done so without permission.

Keep a couple more things in mind about Kennedy as the time to vote nears. Don't forget who was in town last week to raise money for his campaign. And especially don't forget the absolute slime he threw against Patty Wetterling in the congressional race last year. If you don't remember, he called a woman whose son was abducted and probably murdered "soft on terrorism."

This guy is lower than whale droppings. He'd make even Bush lap dog Norm Coleman look like a great statesman. If Minnesota is stupid enough to elect him this time, I'm moving to Texas. There won't be much difference.

"I'll fire anyone who doesn't lie, cheat or steal to get whatever he wants."

There's even more news lately from the NY Times and the Washington Post about the Rove/Plame matter. Every little bit that comes out (the Post story clearly blows one of Rove's defenses out of the water--that Plame's name was not secret) shows more and more the Bush administration's disregard for truth in any of its dealings leading up to or since the start of the Iraq war.

But whether this is the liberals' chance to get Rove over the Plame matter is completely secondary to the matter really at hand: when is the mounting evidence that these lying bastards MADE UP THE ENTIRE THING TO GET US INTO A WAR going to cause the American people to do the decent thing and impeach 'em all?

Of course, it won't happen. After all, we've got the bigger issues of the gay married terrorists to worry about. And it's not our sons and daughters that are over there. We, and every member of Congress (save a couple) and this administration are too smart to let that happen while we can raise an army be impoverishing rural America.

All I did was order a few pizzas. Really!

Last week I was in a place with no TV news or newspapers, so it was a blissful time free of worry about bombings in London or the rattish morality of Karl Rove. I got back on Saturday, though, just in time to read about the bombings of candy grabbing school children and market place gas tankers in Iraq. Two loud bangs and there were more dead Iraqis in two days than Londoners or Madrilenos in the past two years.

Who do we blame for this? It might be a good idea to look at what's behind all this Rove/Cooper/Wilson stuff to find an answer.

In case you haven't been paying attention, (and the fact that calls for a certain President's impeachment haven't yet reached the level engendered by a stained blue dress indicates you haven't,) the whole mess was ultimately precipitated by Joseph Wilson writing an op-ed piece for the NY Times saying that the administration's claims that Iraq was on the verge of making nuclear (or nucular, if you're the village idiot of Crawford, Texas) weapons was unsubstantiated.

Now, those idiots don't much like being called idiots, so they got right after Wilson by outing his wife as a CIA agent. Now whether you believe that revelation broke the letter of the law or not, you still gotta admit that's pretty low, at best. And if there's one thing that's certain about Rove, it's that there is nothing too low for him. (As one person said, the only reason he can't get any further into the mud is that his shirt buttons are in the way.)

But what is important to keep in mind is not that Rove actually set out to get Wilson and his wife, but rather the mindset that Bush's people can do anything they damn well please, up to and including lying to the country to start a war. That, and that anyone who tries to stop them will, at best, be dismissed as ineffectual, and at worst, end up with ruined lives or ruined political careers. If you have a short memory, look up what was done to John McCain in South Carolina in the 2000 primary or Ann Richards in the Texas governor's race in 1994. (OK, you don't remember, but McCain's wife is nuts and had a mixed race child, and Richards was a lesbian, according to their opposition.) That's just for starters, though. Read Bush's Brain if you want real nightmares.

So here's how I read the whole Rove thing: it's just part of the most insidious government we've had in this country in my lifetime. Nixon's boys were complete amateurs when it came to dirty tricks. Donald Segretti went to jail for much less than what Rove does daily as a matter of course.

And that's why children and shopkeepers get incinerated in Iraq.

Tom Friedman, much revered St. Louis Park multiple Pulitzer winner has a pretty provocative column today in the NY Times entitled "If It's a Muslim Problem, It Needs a Muslim Solution."

He states, "The Muslim village has been derelict in condemning the madness of jihadist attacks. When Salman Rushdie wrote a controversial novel involving the prophet Muhammad, he was sentenced to death by the leader of Iran. To this day - to this day - no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden."

So, I wonder, does this suggest that Muslim hierarchy is supportive of terrorism? One could easily infer that it does. And, then, could one also infer that any Muslim devotees of this hierarchy are our enemies?

Think about it. And think, too, of all the horror that religious fundamentalism of all sorts has wrought upon this world since history began. It should not be lost on us Christians that the communique from the presumed London bombers called the British government "crusaders." Long memory they have. Longer than Bush, certainly. And certainly more cognizant of the meaning of the word. Crusade, literally, means to "mark with a cross."