A Chicken Is Not Pillage

Clinton Supporters Should Vote For McCain In November

Proof's in the pudding.

Whomever Did HE Mean?

Who will John Edwards endorse?  What is the fate of Edwards' 19 pledged delegates?  Did John Edwards vote that MAN?  Uh yup.  I think he did.

Why Does Dennis Rehberg Hate His Mother?

Okay, so we're all very tired of our do-little Congress.  Our friendly Republicans would have us believe that  it's all the Democrat's fault; after all, aren't they in charge of Congress now?  The Righties here in state even want you to believe that the current state of the economy is all the Democratic Congress' fault.  (Here's a joke for you:  Texas oil-man President sends his Vice President to meet with his BFsF, the Suads to attempt a resolution to high oil prices.  The VP comes back, winks and claims his meetings were beneficial.  And oil goes up another $30/barrel.  ~wink~  Oh wait!  That's not a joke.  That's actually what happened.)  But this post isn't about the colossal failings of the Republicans in their leadership role (dare you to say that and keep a straight face).  No, it's about their hatred for the country, beginning with their own mothers.

I think we have a little insight into why this Congress is bogged down.  It's probably because it's over-populated with tantrumming Republican children.  Case in point:

Every year, Congress passes another resolution affirming their support for our National Mother's Day.  Now, I love my Mother, and I hope she knows that even if I usually am a slouch about the whole arbitrary Mother's Day thing.  But seriously, I'm not alone in thinking that such ridiculous Congressional rituals and resolutions are a huge waste of taxpayer's time and Representative's effort.  Fine, hold the vote and get it over with.  On Wednesday, the House did.  The resolution H.R.  1113  "Celebrating the role of mothers in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of Mother's Day"  passed the House by a unanimous vote, 412 to 0.  No problem and let's get on with the taxpayer's business.  But wait ...

The only thing more godawful wasteful than meaningless Resolutions are Resolutions voted twice, that serve no one but Congress itself.  The only thing that could be worse than that are voice-count Resolutions manipulated by one party for *no* reason other than to waste effort and time.  And which party did that?  You guessed it.  The party of hating mom, apple pie and condescending to Nascar did that; the Republicans.

Republican Representative Todd Tiahrt called for a recount  voice vote, and 177 Republicans  said "Nay", they are not  "Celebrating the role of mothers in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of Mother's Day".  And who should we find here?

Montana

Nay       MT-0 Rehburg, Dennis (R)

I guess Dennis doesn't like dear ole Mom or something.  If you think I'm going too far, just take the word of the House Minority Leader:

House Minority Leader John Boehner, asked yesterday to explain why he and 177 of his colleagues switched their votes, answered: "Oh, we just wanted to make sure that everyone was on record in support of Mother's Day."

This couldn't be more plain; Dennis Rehberg is on record as NOT supporting Mother's Day.  At best, this can be seen as a huge flip-flop from the stupid among the House minority.  At worst, it is a blatant attempt to derail the honest efforts of the US Congress.  The next local righty who blames the Democrats for accomplishing nothing will get laughed at.  The next local righty who tells me that Dennis Rehberg isn't the lowest form of loathsome party suck-up will get pointed to this vote.  He is Montana's sole Representative to the House, and he just said that Montana doesn't support Mother's Day.  The worst part is that he said it just to disrupt the people's business for no good reason at all.

I don't mind that Dennis Rehberg hates his mother; I just wish he didn't hate his country enough to screw with its governance.

Needs Be Repeated

In light of the current political race, this needs be repeated:

What the hell is wrong with Progressives?

How We Got To Where We Are

It is what is it is:

via, KIT.  (And Lady, I share the best wishes of BS Cairn and all your many friends.  Congratulations.  I pray for you the deepest happiness.)

The Empire Strikes Barack

I doubt that Clinton supporters will find this terrible amusin' like, but I laughed good and hardy.  And yeah, Bill Richardson would shoot first ...

Don't Take My Word For It

Over at another place, I defended Barack Obama against claims that he doesn't care about GBLT issues.  I'll be the first to admit that my defense was based in large part on my distrust of Hillary Clinton's stance and record.  I believe that 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' was a stupid compromise, and an affront to basic civil rights.  For my effort, I was castigated as 'not knowing what gay people really think, or what their issues are'.  Fair enough.  I may not.  My only take is that I believe that civil rights extend to all, and so I may have a blind spot concerning the GBLT community.

So I did find it interesting when a dKos diarist, who is a homosexual activist, took Hillary Clinton to task.  Though I highly doubt that I have many (if any) gay readers, I invite you all to read this because it sounds a warning to any who would take Clintonian policies at face value, when the topic is civil rights vs. her ambition.

Hillary's Serious Gay Problem.

Ur Doing It Rong!

Like most folks throwing words into the Great Online, I don't have a lot of faith that political types with aspiration aren't constantly pandering to our desires and fears.  It's often hard to tell whether they are  sincere or lying to you, the voter  (unless of course, they announce that they're going to lie to you.)  But one thing you can be pretty well certain of is that if a politician tells you to your face that they don't like you, they probably aren't lying.  They really don't like you.  Most politicians are smart enough not to tell voters how much they don't like 'em.  Some politicians just aren't so smart.

This is especially true in local and regional contests.  So imagine my surprise when 2 candidates for the Montana House of Representatives hurled insult at the very voters they wish to represent.  Carol Minjares, The Frightened for H.D.  97 in Missoula really doesn't like Missoula.   In a post about 3 young Republicans running in Missoula, she headers it by referring to the city as "the People's Republic", an obvious (and worn out) euphemism accusing Missoula of being communist.  Not to be outdone in racing to the bottom, Steve Eschenbacher, Idiot for H.D. 96, picks up the same insult.

"The People's Republic of Missoula", written without irony (or any sense of how not-funny that 'joke' has gotten) by two folks who need votes from Missoulians to get elected.  They really don't like you, Missoula, not the town, not the people.  They apparently seem to think that they can save you pinkos from yourselves, but they certainly won't do it out of caring or respect for you.  So, when the time comes for you 'commies' to remind these idjits that Missoula and Montana are democratic republics, cast your votes accordingly.  Kindly show these fools the meaning of 'EPIC FAIL'.

Super Snowflakes

I'm done arguing with Clinton supporters at other websites.  I don't enjoy it, and I don't enjoy their embarrassingly pompous rebuttals.  The only response they have left is that I don't 'understaaaand' their deep commitments and beliefs, the things they feel so much more desperately than us Obamabots.  They have the underdog shtick down to a fine art, and I'm just not amused by it anymore.   I clearly understand it; I've been a Bronco fan my entire life.

I watched Craig Morton come off the bench in the 4th quarter and score 21 points in 3 minutes as the Broncos came back to beat the Seahawks.  I've seen the Broncos enter the Superbowl as 13 point favorites and suffer the worst defeat in SB history.  And I watched the Broncos enter the SB as 13+ point underdogs to win against Brett Favre.  I know what's possible in the world, for underdogs and otherwise.  So I understand that Hillary can still win the nomination ... with the help of super-human players.

The mathematics is clear.  Clinton can't win unless one includes imaginary numbers or divides by 0.  It simply won't happen.  She's lost.  So the campaign from here on out has nothing to do with us lowly voters.  It is all about the SuperDooperDelegates.  If Clinton tells you that "it's all about you!" she's lying.  If Obama tells you that "it's all about you", then he's lying.  If Andy Hammond tells you that it's all about gaming the vote, then he's stupid, and an immoral little shit stain on the underwear of bad fart Republicant politics.  It isn't about us anymore.  In the wildest numeric fantasies possible, Hillary Clinton remains a viable candidate.  But those fantasies are the anathema of the reality based community.  She can win, but only if her Craig Morton or John Elway comes off the bench.  She needs the Supers to do her bidding.  She won't win without them, and we all know it.

Blue Texan, at Firedoglake spills an appeal that can't help but mirror:  Dear Superdelegates

OK, OK, you've made your point. We get it. You're super powerful and important. We all see that now. And let me just add, personally, that we're all tremendously impressed and awed by your superness. Promise.

Now.

Will you please listen to our party chairman, Howard Dean, and tell us who the hell you're voting for?

I clearly understand why most of the SDs from Montana are holding silent.  They don't want to upset the delicate constitutions of Clinton voters, or enrage the programming of us Obamabots.  They're playing it safe, and hoping that the decision will never come to them.  I see that as, in some ways, humble.  I respect it.  But for pity's fricking sake, this has gone on long enough.  Ed Tinsley has shown a pair, and so has Doc Melcher.   There really isn't much left to say.  These folk are campaigning for you now, superdooperdelegates.  Are you so enraptured with your own special purpose that you will leave Montanans fighting and angry?  Please, make up your minds.

I'm certain that the SDs are just trying to be ... cautious.  But there are a lot of voters like me who are just getting pissed off.  It's over except for these folks, and everyday they vacillate is one more day that I increase in loathing them.  They want state support?  They want to do the right thing by their constituents?  Then make up your fricking minds and end this goddamned thing.   Blue Texan says:

Democratic superdelegates, unless you are the biggest attention whores/megalomaniacs on the planet, there's no good reason why you can't tell us who you're with now. We've been looking at these candidates for 13 months, we've seen them from every angle imaginable, we know more about them then we knew about John Kerry, Al Gore and Bill Clinton. And there's nothing Guam or Puerto Rico or South Dakota is going to tell us that we didn't already know.

Show us your cards. Give it up.

Governor Schweitzer and Senator Tester, we are Montanans.  Most of us don't have time for your little power games.  If you want Hillary, go with Hillary.  If you prefer Barack, then fracking say so.  Put an end to this thing ... now ... before we end up with the inevitable President Gelding McCan't.  And Senator Baucus, you do whatever you think will favor you.  Montana expects little else.  But would you please just make a choice so that we don't suffer for your status as a special little snowflake?

(Everything I've just said as an aside, I actually look forward to the campaigns coming to Montana just to woo the SDs.  The state will make money and won't that be grand!  It won't change a damn thing, but it will help our economy ... for a while.)

Who Wrote This?

Somebody wrote:

Which just goes to show that politicians will lie through their teeth, knowing that they cannot do what they are promising, and yet, we still buy it. Why do we let them get away with this?

Now who could that be?  Simple enough.  Aspiring politician Steve Eschenbacher, Idiot for H.D. 96.   Vote accordingly, Missoula.