1/17/2012
Newt Gingrich's Inner Redneck Appears:
There wasn't a safe goat ass anywhere in eastern South Carolina last night. After the Republican presidential debate in Myrtle Beach, the whooping, hooting, cheering white people, whipped into a frenzied state by the race-baiting rhetoric of Newt Gingrich, headed out to the backyards and barns of the Gamecock state to take out their throbbing desires on goats, fucking the goats from behind, getting ass-reamed by the goats, the women glazed by goat semen, the men plastered with goat shit on their dicks, none of them caring because, with Newt leading them against that uppity nigger, Juan Williams, the evening's surrogate Obama, the South would rise again, so they may as well do what they do best: wallow around naked in a mud pit, coated with goat feces and cum, staring up at the stars, remembering the glory of the evening they had witnessed, the confused goat, feeling both satisfied and violated, heading into a corner to sleep.
The Fox "news"/Wall Street Journal/Murdoch's Taint debate was only notable because of the moment when Newt Gingrich decided to double down on the racism on Martin Luther King Day when questioned by Juan Williams about his remarks on black youths and food stamps, as well as his call for poor kids to become janitors at their high school. When Gingrich refused to modify or sugarcoat what he had said, the audience at the Myrtle Beach Convention Center exploded.
Of course they did. There was a group of crackers, having been forced to go through an entire day hearing about how a great black man fought for the rights of black people so that now, not only do you have to share water fountains with 'em, but you can't even call 'em "boy" at work without someone getting all upset, and, besides, what are you gonna do with all these unburned crosses? And once the cork was off the crowd, it turned viciously on Williams, booing him loudly when he attempted to get Gingrich to explain because "It sounds as if you are seeking to belittle [poor and nonwhite] people."
Watch the video of the event. You can pinpoint the moment that Gingrich saw that he had the audience eating out of his hand like trained pigs lining up at the garbage trough. His hand movements get more forceful. His voice rises. He is surfing the wave of adoration like a California teenager on his board, hitting that sweet spot in the barrel. And he just goes to town with the lies: "[T]he fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history." (Not a fact at all. In fact, it was George W. Bush who is responsible for more people getting on food stamps; oh, and isn't that a good thing so that kids can eat?) "There’s — the area that ought to be I-73 was called by Barack Obama 'a corridor of shame' because of unemployment." (Nope. The "Corridor of Shame" is because of the condition of the rural schools in the area. Oh, and Obama didn't name it that; the people from there did. Oh, and it's along I-95.)
But who the fuck cares if Newt Gingrich is a venal, lying shitsack, an angry hippopotamus destroying anything it can and dragging the half-dead into the river to drown? The audience lapped it up as he jacked off in their faces, using his dick to slap the black guy who dared to question the rightness of his Newtness. He is a walking, talking infection, and every time we think we've gotten rid of him, he comes back stronger and more resistant to the drugs that can kill him.
However, big thanks to the people of South Carolina for revealing, as ever, that racist pricks will always and forever be racist pricks and that redneck assholes will always be easily manipulated into thinking that the rich motherfucker up on stage who calls out the "elitists" is one of them.
(Fun true story: Myrtle Beach is cracker vacation paradise. As the man who was repairing his air conditioner once told the Rude Pundit while living in Tennessee, he loved going to Myrtle Beach because he could drive his pick-up truck on the beach. "It don't get no better than that," he said. Having never driven a pick-up on a beach, the Rude Pundit could neither agree nor disagree.)
There wasn't a safe goat ass anywhere in eastern South Carolina last night. After the Republican presidential debate in Myrtle Beach, the whooping, hooting, cheering white people, whipped into a frenzied state by the race-baiting rhetoric of Newt Gingrich, headed out to the backyards and barns of the Gamecock state to take out their throbbing desires on goats, fucking the goats from behind, getting ass-reamed by the goats, the women glazed by goat semen, the men plastered with goat shit on their dicks, none of them caring because, with Newt leading them against that uppity nigger, Juan Williams, the evening's surrogate Obama, the South would rise again, so they may as well do what they do best: wallow around naked in a mud pit, coated with goat feces and cum, staring up at the stars, remembering the glory of the evening they had witnessed, the confused goat, feeling both satisfied and violated, heading into a corner to sleep.
The Fox "news"/Wall Street Journal/Murdoch's Taint debate was only notable because of the moment when Newt Gingrich decided to double down on the racism on Martin Luther King Day when questioned by Juan Williams about his remarks on black youths and food stamps, as well as his call for poor kids to become janitors at their high school. When Gingrich refused to modify or sugarcoat what he had said, the audience at the Myrtle Beach Convention Center exploded.
Of course they did. There was a group of crackers, having been forced to go through an entire day hearing about how a great black man fought for the rights of black people so that now, not only do you have to share water fountains with 'em, but you can't even call 'em "boy" at work without someone getting all upset, and, besides, what are you gonna do with all these unburned crosses? And once the cork was off the crowd, it turned viciously on Williams, booing him loudly when he attempted to get Gingrich to explain because "It sounds as if you are seeking to belittle [poor and nonwhite] people."
Watch the video of the event. You can pinpoint the moment that Gingrich saw that he had the audience eating out of his hand like trained pigs lining up at the garbage trough. His hand movements get more forceful. His voice rises. He is surfing the wave of adoration like a California teenager on his board, hitting that sweet spot in the barrel. And he just goes to town with the lies: "[T]he fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history." (Not a fact at all. In fact, it was George W. Bush who is responsible for more people getting on food stamps; oh, and isn't that a good thing so that kids can eat?) "There’s — the area that ought to be I-73 was called by Barack Obama 'a corridor of shame' because of unemployment." (Nope. The "Corridor of Shame" is because of the condition of the rural schools in the area. Oh, and Obama didn't name it that; the people from there did. Oh, and it's along I-95.)
But who the fuck cares if Newt Gingrich is a venal, lying shitsack, an angry hippopotamus destroying anything it can and dragging the half-dead into the river to drown? The audience lapped it up as he jacked off in their faces, using his dick to slap the black guy who dared to question the rightness of his Newtness. He is a walking, talking infection, and every time we think we've gotten rid of him, he comes back stronger and more resistant to the drugs that can kill him.
However, big thanks to the people of South Carolina for revealing, as ever, that racist pricks will always and forever be racist pricks and that redneck assholes will always be easily manipulated into thinking that the rich motherfucker up on stage who calls out the "elitists" is one of them.
(Fun true story: Myrtle Beach is cracker vacation paradise. As the man who was repairing his air conditioner once told the Rude Pundit while living in Tennessee, he loved going to Myrtle Beach because he could drive his pick-up truck on the beach. "It don't get no better than that," he said. Having never driven a pick-up on a beach, the Rude Pundit could neither agree nor disagree.)
1/16/2012
Martin Luther King Would Still Fuck Your Shit Up (99% Edition):
Here's something relevant to our current debate over whether or not it's okay to raise the marginal income tax rate on millionaires by 4%. It's from the sermon "Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution," delivered at the National Cathedral in Washington, DC, on March 31, 1968, after King had finished discussing racial injustice:
"We are challenged to rid our nation and the world of poverty. Like a monstrous octopus, poverty spreads its nagging, prehensile tentacles into hamlets and villages all over our world. Two-thirds of the people of the world go to bed hungry tonight. They are ill-housed; they are ill-nourished; they are shabbily clad. I’ve seen it in Latin America; I’ve seen it in Africa; I’ve seen this poverty in Asia."
King then described a trip that he and his wife took to India, coming to the conclusion that "maybe we spend far too much of our national budget establishing military bases around the world rather than bases of genuine concern and understanding."
He continued, "Not only do we see poverty abroad, I would remind you that in our own nation there are about forty million people who are poverty-stricken. I have seen them here and there. I have seen them in the ghettos of the North; I have seen them in the rural areas of the South; I have seen them in Appalachia. I have just been in the process of touring many areas of our country and I must confess that in some situations I have literally found myself crying.
"I was in Marks, Mississippi, the other day, which is in Whitman County, the poorest county in the United States. I tell you, I saw hundreds of little black boys and black girls walking the streets with no shoes to wear. I saw their mothers and fathers trying to carry on a little Head Start program, but they had no money. The federal government hadn’t funded them, but they were trying to carry on. They raised a little money here and there; trying to get a little food to feed the children; trying to teach them a little something.
"And I saw mothers and fathers who said to me not only were they unemployed, they didn’t get any kind of income—no old-age pension, no welfare check, no anything. I said, 'How do you live?' And they say, 'Well, we go around, go around to the neighbors and ask them for a little something. When the berry season comes, we pick berries. When the rabbit season comes, we hunt and catch a few rabbits. And that’s about it.'
"And I was in Newark and Harlem just this week. And I walked into the homes of welfare mothers. I saw them in conditions—no, not with wall-to-wall carpet, but wall-to-wall rats and roaches. I stood in an apartment and this welfare mother said to me, 'The landlord will not repair this place. I’ve been here two years and he hasn’t made a single repair.' She pointed out the walls with all the ceiling falling through. She showed me the holes where the rats came in. She said night after night we have to stay awake to keep the rats and roaches from getting to the children. I said, 'How much do you pay for this apartment?' She said, 'A hundred and twenty-five dollars.' I looked, and I thought, and said to myself, 'It isn’t worth sixty dollars.' Poor people are forced to pay more for less. Living in conditions day in and day out where the whole area is constantly drained without being replenished. It becomes a kind of domestic colony. And the tragedy is, so often these forty million people are invisible because America is so affluent, so rich. Because our expressways carry us from the ghetto, we don’t see the poor.
"Jesus told a parable one day, and he reminded us that a man went to hell because he didn’t see the poor. His name was Dives. He was a rich man. And there was a man by the name of Lazarus who was a poor man, but not only was he poor, he was sick. Sores were all over his body, and he was so weak that he could hardly move. But he managed to get to the gate of Dives every day, wanting just to have the crumbs that would fall from his table. And Dives did nothing about it. And the parable ends saying, 'Dives went to hell, and there were a fixed gulf now between Lazarus and Dives.'
"There is nothing in that parable that said Dives went to hell because he was rich. Jesus never made a universal indictment against all wealth. It is true that one day a rich young ruler came to him, and he advised him to sell all, but in that instance Jesus was prescribing individual surgery and not setting forth a universal diagnosis. And if you will look at that parable with all of its symbolism, you will remember that a conversation took place between heaven and hell, and on the other end of that long-distance call between heaven and hell was Abraham in heaven talking to Dives in hell.
"Now Abraham was a very rich man. If you go back to the Old Testament, you see that he was the richest man of his day, so it was not a rich man in hell talking with a poor man in heaven; it was a little millionaire in hell talking with a multimillionaire in heaven. Dives didn’t go to hell because he was rich; Dives didn’t realize that his wealth was his opportunity. It was his opportunity to bridge the gulf that separated him from his brother Lazarus. Dives went to hell because he was passed by Lazarus every day and he never really saw him. He went to hell because he allowed his brother to become invisible. Dives went to hell because he maximized the minimum and minimized the maximum. Indeed, Dives went to hell because he sought to be a conscientious objector in the war against poverty.
"And this can happen to America, the richest nation in the world — and nothing’s wrong with that — this is America’s opportunity to help bridge the gulf between the haves and the have-nots. The question is whether America will do it. There is nothing new about poverty. What is new is that we now have the techniques and the resources to get rid of poverty. The real question is whether we have the will."
That this sermon could be delivered today, 44 years later, with some adjustments for inflation and with "billionaire" in there, speaks to a shame that should scar us as deeply as any mark of Cain. That it doesn't and that we speak of helping the poor with the crumbs that fall from the table of the rich as "wealth redistribution," as if that's wrong and evil, demonstrates that we are, indeed, damned as Dives.
Here's something relevant to our current debate over whether or not it's okay to raise the marginal income tax rate on millionaires by 4%. It's from the sermon "Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution," delivered at the National Cathedral in Washington, DC, on March 31, 1968, after King had finished discussing racial injustice:
"We are challenged to rid our nation and the world of poverty. Like a monstrous octopus, poverty spreads its nagging, prehensile tentacles into hamlets and villages all over our world. Two-thirds of the people of the world go to bed hungry tonight. They are ill-housed; they are ill-nourished; they are shabbily clad. I’ve seen it in Latin America; I’ve seen it in Africa; I’ve seen this poverty in Asia."
King then described a trip that he and his wife took to India, coming to the conclusion that "maybe we spend far too much of our national budget establishing military bases around the world rather than bases of genuine concern and understanding."
He continued, "Not only do we see poverty abroad, I would remind you that in our own nation there are about forty million people who are poverty-stricken. I have seen them here and there. I have seen them in the ghettos of the North; I have seen them in the rural areas of the South; I have seen them in Appalachia. I have just been in the process of touring many areas of our country and I must confess that in some situations I have literally found myself crying.
"I was in Marks, Mississippi, the other day, which is in Whitman County, the poorest county in the United States. I tell you, I saw hundreds of little black boys and black girls walking the streets with no shoes to wear. I saw their mothers and fathers trying to carry on a little Head Start program, but they had no money. The federal government hadn’t funded them, but they were trying to carry on. They raised a little money here and there; trying to get a little food to feed the children; trying to teach them a little something.
"And I saw mothers and fathers who said to me not only were they unemployed, they didn’t get any kind of income—no old-age pension, no welfare check, no anything. I said, 'How do you live?' And they say, 'Well, we go around, go around to the neighbors and ask them for a little something. When the berry season comes, we pick berries. When the rabbit season comes, we hunt and catch a few rabbits. And that’s about it.'
"And I was in Newark and Harlem just this week. And I walked into the homes of welfare mothers. I saw them in conditions—no, not with wall-to-wall carpet, but wall-to-wall rats and roaches. I stood in an apartment and this welfare mother said to me, 'The landlord will not repair this place. I’ve been here two years and he hasn’t made a single repair.' She pointed out the walls with all the ceiling falling through. She showed me the holes where the rats came in. She said night after night we have to stay awake to keep the rats and roaches from getting to the children. I said, 'How much do you pay for this apartment?' She said, 'A hundred and twenty-five dollars.' I looked, and I thought, and said to myself, 'It isn’t worth sixty dollars.' Poor people are forced to pay more for less. Living in conditions day in and day out where the whole area is constantly drained without being replenished. It becomes a kind of domestic colony. And the tragedy is, so often these forty million people are invisible because America is so affluent, so rich. Because our expressways carry us from the ghetto, we don’t see the poor.
"Jesus told a parable one day, and he reminded us that a man went to hell because he didn’t see the poor. His name was Dives. He was a rich man. And there was a man by the name of Lazarus who was a poor man, but not only was he poor, he was sick. Sores were all over his body, and he was so weak that he could hardly move. But he managed to get to the gate of Dives every day, wanting just to have the crumbs that would fall from his table. And Dives did nothing about it. And the parable ends saying, 'Dives went to hell, and there were a fixed gulf now between Lazarus and Dives.'
"There is nothing in that parable that said Dives went to hell because he was rich. Jesus never made a universal indictment against all wealth. It is true that one day a rich young ruler came to him, and he advised him to sell all, but in that instance Jesus was prescribing individual surgery and not setting forth a universal diagnosis. And if you will look at that parable with all of its symbolism, you will remember that a conversation took place between heaven and hell, and on the other end of that long-distance call between heaven and hell was Abraham in heaven talking to Dives in hell.
"Now Abraham was a very rich man. If you go back to the Old Testament, you see that he was the richest man of his day, so it was not a rich man in hell talking with a poor man in heaven; it was a little millionaire in hell talking with a multimillionaire in heaven. Dives didn’t go to hell because he was rich; Dives didn’t realize that his wealth was his opportunity. It was his opportunity to bridge the gulf that separated him from his brother Lazarus. Dives went to hell because he was passed by Lazarus every day and he never really saw him. He went to hell because he allowed his brother to become invisible. Dives went to hell because he maximized the minimum and minimized the maximum. Indeed, Dives went to hell because he sought to be a conscientious objector in the war against poverty.
"And this can happen to America, the richest nation in the world — and nothing’s wrong with that — this is America’s opportunity to help bridge the gulf between the haves and the have-nots. The question is whether America will do it. There is nothing new about poverty. What is new is that we now have the techniques and the resources to get rid of poverty. The real question is whether we have the will."
That this sermon could be delivered today, 44 years later, with some adjustments for inflation and with "billionaire" in there, speaks to a shame that should scar us as deeply as any mark of Cain. That it doesn't and that we speak of helping the poor with the crumbs that fall from the table of the rich as "wealth redistribution," as if that's wrong and evil, demonstrates that we are, indeed, damned as Dives.
1/13/2012
Photos That Make the Rude Pundit Want to Smoke a Poisoned Cigar:
Yes, that is Marxist revolutionary/t-shirt glamor boy Che Guevara. Yes, that is a Mercedes-Benz symbol on his beret. Yes, that is a presentation about new cars. Yes, it says, "Viva la Revolucion" up there, as if remodeled Benzes are akin to the overthrow of Batista in Cuba.
There's so many things wrong with that image that it's enough to make your brain explode, no matter what side of the Che worship/condemnation or hero/mass murderer lines you come down on. Daimler, Mercedes' parent company, said that Che was chosen to show "the revolution in automobility enabled by new technologies, in particular those associated with connectivity." Because nothing says, "Hey, cool, my car will tell me if someone liked my Facebook status update" more than the dude who said, "We are fighting against misery, but we are also fighting against alienation." Still, high-priced rolling connectivity fighting alienation aside, are you motherfucking serious? (Oh, and is "automobility" a word now?)
Capitalism eats everything eventually. Even Communists.
Yes, that is Marxist revolutionary/t-shirt glamor boy Che Guevara. Yes, that is a Mercedes-Benz symbol on his beret. Yes, that is a presentation about new cars. Yes, it says, "Viva la Revolucion" up there, as if remodeled Benzes are akin to the overthrow of Batista in Cuba.
There's so many things wrong with that image that it's enough to make your brain explode, no matter what side of the Che worship/condemnation or hero/mass murderer lines you come down on. Daimler, Mercedes' parent company, said that Che was chosen to show "the revolution in automobility enabled by new technologies, in particular those associated with connectivity." Because nothing says, "Hey, cool, my car will tell me if someone liked my Facebook status update" more than the dude who said, "We are fighting against misery, but we are also fighting against alienation." Still, high-priced rolling connectivity fighting alienation aside, are you motherfucking serious? (Oh, and is "automobility" a word now?)
Capitalism eats everything eventually. Even Communists.
1/12/2012
Gitmo Ten Years On: Our Untreated, Open Wound:
Yesterday marked the tenth anniversary of the first prisoners arriving at the detention camp at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The fact that the camp still exists to keep 171 detainees in a legal limbo is a stain on our nation. And it matters, desperately so. How can we act outraged and self-righteous about Marines allegedly pissing on Taliban fighter corpses when Gitmo exists? And the Gitmo-ization of our entire legal system continues, with the barest outrage at the militarization of local police forces. Over at Guantanamo Bay, as reported in the Washington Post today, the prisoners are still treated as imminent threats. Their written communications with their military lawyers are subject to scrutiny, in violation of attorney-client privilege, and the lawyers, who, again, are members of the military with security clearance, are outraged.
Mostly, though, the United States couldn't give a shit less about Gitmo. But it's an infection that has eaten away at us in ways that we can't even comprehend, ignoring it like a wound that is left untreated.
The Rude Pundit's Almanack includes this takedown of our detention policies (posted here with some revisions and updates):
When it comes to some principles, like those enshrined in things like the Magna Carta or the Constitution, you shouldn’t care who the hell is in the White House. Here’s a basic one: A president should not have the power to detain people without charge. On the left, we screamed like banshees who had stubbed our toes during the Bush administration over the imprisonment without charge or trial of hundreds of people at the Guantánamo Naval Base. But that noise has died down considerably since the election of Barack Obama, even though the policy has not really changed, and, in fact, Obama has embraced most of the imperial presidency powers that Bush got a prone-and-willing Congress to give him. Both presidents want you to believe that they should have such sweeping authority simply because you can trust them.
The Bush administration demonstrated, on a nearly monthly basis, why such trust is about as valuable as the information gotten from nearly every person ever kept at Gitmo:
On January 27, 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney said on ABC’s This Week with Sam Donaldson: “These are bad people. I mean, they’ve already been screened before they get to Guantánamo.”
By October 28, 2002, the first four detainees were released.
On July 17, 2003, in a joint press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, President George W. Bush claimed, “[T]he only thing I know for certain is that these are bad people.”
On July 18, 2003, twenty-seven of those bad people were sent back to their home countries.
(You can see the pattern, here, no? It pretty much continued like that, even into the second term of our Bush/Cheney nightmare.)
On June 13, 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney informed Sean Hannity on Fox "news," “The important thing here to understand is that the people that are at Guantánamo are bad people. I mean, these are terrorists for the most part. These are people that were captured in the battlefield of Afghanistan or rounded up as part of the Al Qaeda network. We’ve already screened the detainees there and released a number, sent them back to their home countries. But what’s left is hardcore.”
On July 20, 2005, eight hardcore detainees were released or sent to their home countries.
Even at the end of their years in office, they were insisting that “oh, hey, now it’s just really, really bad awful worst o’ the worstest people that ever walked the earth.”
During a December 15, 2008 interview with Jonathan Karl, Vice President Dick Cheney offered, “Guantánamo has been the repository, if you will, of hundreds of terrorists, or suspected terrorists, that we’ve captured since 9/11. They—many of them, hundreds, have been released back to their home countries. What we have left is the hardcore. Their cases are reviewed on an annual basis to see whether or not they’re still a threat, whether or not they’re still intelligence value in terms of continuing to hold them. But—and we're down now to some 200 being held at Guantánamo. But that includes the core group, the really high-value targets like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.” Despite his self-correction in the first sentence there, he also called them “200 al-Qaeda terrorists” later in the interview.
On December 16, 2008, three al-Qaeda terrorists were sent back to their home countries.
On January 13, 2009, Cheney told radio host and gambling man Bill Bennett, regarding the detainees at Gitmo, “Now what’s left, that is the hardcore.” Which, if you’re paying attention, is almost exactly what he said to Sean Hannity in 2005, which was over a hundred released detainees ago.
On January 17, 2009, six more of the hardcore were sent back to their home countries. That was just a couple of days before Barack Obama was inaugurated, so did they intentionally release criminals just to fuck with the new administration?
After 9/11, the White House fed us this line about the terrible people we held in a place where they couldn’t harm us. Anyone who questioned these actions was called an anti-American terrorist-enabler by the right. Until Hurricane Katrina blew the ski masks off the entire bunch of thugs who ran the country, the mainstream media mostly just went along with the White House line when, right in front of them, was the trickle of released detainees, which demonstrated, conclusively, that George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and others were lying. And no one of any authority, like, say, Congress or even just the Democrats, held them to account for it.
Now, not only do we still have Gitmo and Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan but, in Congress, both Democrats and Republicans blocked the closing of Guantanamo by voting to deny funds for that purpose, including any funds for bringing detainees to the United States for trial. If this had been the Bush White House, that would have been seen as something akin to treason for not allowing the Commander-in-Chief to command.
By the way, on May 12, 2009, talking about Gitmo again, Dick Cheney told Fox "news" host Neil Cavuto, “The ones that are remaining, about 245, are the hardcore, the worst of the worst.” At least someone in this world is consistent until the bitter end.
Oh, on May 15, 2009, Lakhdar Boumedienne was freed.
Yesterday marked the tenth anniversary of the first prisoners arriving at the detention camp at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The fact that the camp still exists to keep 171 detainees in a legal limbo is a stain on our nation. And it matters, desperately so. How can we act outraged and self-righteous about Marines allegedly pissing on Taliban fighter corpses when Gitmo exists? And the Gitmo-ization of our entire legal system continues, with the barest outrage at the militarization of local police forces. Over at Guantanamo Bay, as reported in the Washington Post today, the prisoners are still treated as imminent threats. Their written communications with their military lawyers are subject to scrutiny, in violation of attorney-client privilege, and the lawyers, who, again, are members of the military with security clearance, are outraged.
Mostly, though, the United States couldn't give a shit less about Gitmo. But it's an infection that has eaten away at us in ways that we can't even comprehend, ignoring it like a wound that is left untreated.
The Rude Pundit's Almanack includes this takedown of our detention policies (posted here with some revisions and updates):
When it comes to some principles, like those enshrined in things like the Magna Carta or the Constitution, you shouldn’t care who the hell is in the White House. Here’s a basic one: A president should not have the power to detain people without charge. On the left, we screamed like banshees who had stubbed our toes during the Bush administration over the imprisonment without charge or trial of hundreds of people at the Guantánamo Naval Base. But that noise has died down considerably since the election of Barack Obama, even though the policy has not really changed, and, in fact, Obama has embraced most of the imperial presidency powers that Bush got a prone-and-willing Congress to give him. Both presidents want you to believe that they should have such sweeping authority simply because you can trust them.
The Bush administration demonstrated, on a nearly monthly basis, why such trust is about as valuable as the information gotten from nearly every person ever kept at Gitmo:
On January 27, 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney said on ABC’s This Week with Sam Donaldson: “These are bad people. I mean, they’ve already been screened before they get to Guantánamo.”
By October 28, 2002, the first four detainees were released.
On July 17, 2003, in a joint press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, President George W. Bush claimed, “[T]he only thing I know for certain is that these are bad people.”
On July 18, 2003, twenty-seven of those bad people were sent back to their home countries.
(You can see the pattern, here, no? It pretty much continued like that, even into the second term of our Bush/Cheney nightmare.)
On June 13, 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney informed Sean Hannity on Fox "news," “The important thing here to understand is that the people that are at Guantánamo are bad people. I mean, these are terrorists for the most part. These are people that were captured in the battlefield of Afghanistan or rounded up as part of the Al Qaeda network. We’ve already screened the detainees there and released a number, sent them back to their home countries. But what’s left is hardcore.”
On July 20, 2005, eight hardcore detainees were released or sent to their home countries.
Even at the end of their years in office, they were insisting that “oh, hey, now it’s just really, really bad awful worst o’ the worstest people that ever walked the earth.”
During a December 15, 2008 interview with Jonathan Karl, Vice President Dick Cheney offered, “Guantánamo has been the repository, if you will, of hundreds of terrorists, or suspected terrorists, that we’ve captured since 9/11. They—many of them, hundreds, have been released back to their home countries. What we have left is the hardcore. Their cases are reviewed on an annual basis to see whether or not they’re still a threat, whether or not they’re still intelligence value in terms of continuing to hold them. But—and we're down now to some 200 being held at Guantánamo. But that includes the core group, the really high-value targets like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.” Despite his self-correction in the first sentence there, he also called them “200 al-Qaeda terrorists” later in the interview.
On December 16, 2008, three al-Qaeda terrorists were sent back to their home countries.
On January 13, 2009, Cheney told radio host and gambling man Bill Bennett, regarding the detainees at Gitmo, “Now what’s left, that is the hardcore.” Which, if you’re paying attention, is almost exactly what he said to Sean Hannity in 2005, which was over a hundred released detainees ago.
On January 17, 2009, six more of the hardcore were sent back to their home countries. That was just a couple of days before Barack Obama was inaugurated, so did they intentionally release criminals just to fuck with the new administration?
After 9/11, the White House fed us this line about the terrible people we held in a place where they couldn’t harm us. Anyone who questioned these actions was called an anti-American terrorist-enabler by the right. Until Hurricane Katrina blew the ski masks off the entire bunch of thugs who ran the country, the mainstream media mostly just went along with the White House line when, right in front of them, was the trickle of released detainees, which demonstrated, conclusively, that George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and others were lying. And no one of any authority, like, say, Congress or even just the Democrats, held them to account for it.
Now, not only do we still have Gitmo and Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan but, in Congress, both Democrats and Republicans blocked the closing of Guantanamo by voting to deny funds for that purpose, including any funds for bringing detainees to the United States for trial. If this had been the Bush White House, that would have been seen as something akin to treason for not allowing the Commander-in-Chief to command.
By the way, on May 12, 2009, talking about Gitmo again, Dick Cheney told Fox "news" host Neil Cavuto, “The ones that are remaining, about 245, are the hardcore, the worst of the worst.” At least someone in this world is consistent until the bitter end.
Oh, on May 15, 2009, Lakhdar Boumedienne was freed.
1/11/2012
Mitt Romney, the Dickhead in Full:
There's nothing to talk about regarding last night's New Hampshire primary, just as there will be nothing to talk about in South Carolina, etc. The forced march to Mittdom for the GOP has all the excitement of a line of dutiful Soviet citizens waiting in line for bread back in the day. When the best the news networks could do last night was talk about how amazing it was that Jon Huntsman was in third and then wait breathlessly to see if Gingrich or Santorum came in fourth, then there is truly no story. More than once, on MSNBC, Ed Schultz looked like he was going to blow his brains out just to create some excitement. Over on CNN, the life slowly drained out of John King as he described the variances between Manchester precinct votes until his zombie form kept hitting the video wall repeatedly. And, on Fox "news," Megyn Kelly could barely contain her contempt at having to interview the horrible Sarah Palin puppet that keeps appearing despite the fact that it's now threadbare with one of its button eyes is dangling.
Yeah, yeah, Ron Paul came in 2nd. And?
What the Rude Pundit wants to talk about is the breathtaking dickishness of Mitt Romney, on full, glorious display in his victory speech/acceptance speech preview last night. We've been treated to that barely repressed assholery at the debates, that patrician look of "How dare you" when someone attacked him, the punk-ass need to invoke time rules, the floundering denial of anything other than the utter rightness of his Mittosity, the disgust that these people, some of them barely millionaires, would be allowed even on the same stage as him.
But last night was an even grander display. It was a full-on face fuck of conservative paranoia and lies. His attack on Barack Obama had nothing to do with, you know, Barack Obama, but was instead a deep-throat cock thrust into the mouth of the Republican base's image of Obama: "Yeah, take that chowder, you simpering yahoos. You know you like it. And now lick me clean after 5 years of campaigning."
It would take pages to try to enumerate the number and breadth of lies in Romney's speech, but let's take one: "[Obama] wants to turn America into a European-style social welfare state. We want to insure we remain a free and prosperous land of opportunity. This president takes his inspiration from the capitals of Europe." First off, why the hating on Europe? The countries that are nose-diving are the ones that got fucked by the same kinds of bullshit investment schemes that fucked the United States. But what part of Europe is he talking about? Because, like, according to the mega-conservative Heritage Foundation's 2011 "Index of Economic Freedom," not only is the United States the ninth most free out of 183 countries, but Ireland, Denmark, and Switzerland are ranked higher. And they provide socialized health care to their citizens (as do all the others ranked higher). So, in other words, we should be so lucky to be like some European nations. But nothing is going to stop Romney from using "Europe" as shorthand for "socialist pussies," so he added at the end, "I want you to remember when our White House reflected the best of who we are, not the worst of what Europe has become."
Romney needs to paint Obama as a radical extremist who "apologizes for America" and is "a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy" because he needs to distract from just how extreme his own ideas are. When Romney says he wants to "repeal Obamacare," he's saying he wants adults under 26 to lose health insurance, if they have it with their parents. He's saying he wants insurance companies to be able to decline you for a pre-existing condition and that caps should be reinstated so that you go bankrupt or die if you get badly sick or injured. His social agenda would break up marriages and families. His tax policy would drive the nation further into debt while he raises the military budget and probably starts a war with Iran.
In other words, everything Mitt Romney wants to do would harm Americans. Everything. So of course he's gotta get out there and be the total dickhead he always was and always will be.
Here's the question someone needs to ask, repeatedly, of Romney: "If you had been elected in 2008, what would you have done to clear the wreckage left behind by George W. Bush?"
There's nothing to talk about regarding last night's New Hampshire primary, just as there will be nothing to talk about in South Carolina, etc. The forced march to Mittdom for the GOP has all the excitement of a line of dutiful Soviet citizens waiting in line for bread back in the day. When the best the news networks could do last night was talk about how amazing it was that Jon Huntsman was in third and then wait breathlessly to see if Gingrich or Santorum came in fourth, then there is truly no story. More than once, on MSNBC, Ed Schultz looked like he was going to blow his brains out just to create some excitement. Over on CNN, the life slowly drained out of John King as he described the variances between Manchester precinct votes until his zombie form kept hitting the video wall repeatedly. And, on Fox "news," Megyn Kelly could barely contain her contempt at having to interview the horrible Sarah Palin puppet that keeps appearing despite the fact that it's now threadbare with one of its button eyes is dangling.
Yeah, yeah, Ron Paul came in 2nd. And?
What the Rude Pundit wants to talk about is the breathtaking dickishness of Mitt Romney, on full, glorious display in his victory speech/acceptance speech preview last night. We've been treated to that barely repressed assholery at the debates, that patrician look of "How dare you" when someone attacked him, the punk-ass need to invoke time rules, the floundering denial of anything other than the utter rightness of his Mittosity, the disgust that these people, some of them barely millionaires, would be allowed even on the same stage as him.
But last night was an even grander display. It was a full-on face fuck of conservative paranoia and lies. His attack on Barack Obama had nothing to do with, you know, Barack Obama, but was instead a deep-throat cock thrust into the mouth of the Republican base's image of Obama: "Yeah, take that chowder, you simpering yahoos. You know you like it. And now lick me clean after 5 years of campaigning."
It would take pages to try to enumerate the number and breadth of lies in Romney's speech, but let's take one: "[Obama] wants to turn America into a European-style social welfare state. We want to insure we remain a free and prosperous land of opportunity. This president takes his inspiration from the capitals of Europe." First off, why the hating on Europe? The countries that are nose-diving are the ones that got fucked by the same kinds of bullshit investment schemes that fucked the United States. But what part of Europe is he talking about? Because, like, according to the mega-conservative Heritage Foundation's 2011 "Index of Economic Freedom," not only is the United States the ninth most free out of 183 countries, but Ireland, Denmark, and Switzerland are ranked higher. And they provide socialized health care to their citizens (as do all the others ranked higher). So, in other words, we should be so lucky to be like some European nations. But nothing is going to stop Romney from using "Europe" as shorthand for "socialist pussies," so he added at the end, "I want you to remember when our White House reflected the best of who we are, not the worst of what Europe has become."
Romney needs to paint Obama as a radical extremist who "apologizes for America" and is "a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy" because he needs to distract from just how extreme his own ideas are. When Romney says he wants to "repeal Obamacare," he's saying he wants adults under 26 to lose health insurance, if they have it with their parents. He's saying he wants insurance companies to be able to decline you for a pre-existing condition and that caps should be reinstated so that you go bankrupt or die if you get badly sick or injured. His social agenda would break up marriages and families. His tax policy would drive the nation further into debt while he raises the military budget and probably starts a war with Iran.
In other words, everything Mitt Romney wants to do would harm Americans. Everything. So of course he's gotta get out there and be the total dickhead he always was and always will be.
Here's the question someone needs to ask, repeatedly, of Romney: "If you had been elected in 2008, what would you have done to clear the wreckage left behind by George W. Bush?"
1/10/2012
A Brief List of Conservative Men Who Need to Be Punched in the Balls:
1. Fox "news" Radio reporter Todd Starnes, who, waxing patriotic to Sean Hannity about the white people of Dixville Notch, New Hampshire, voting in their primary this morning, really said, "I love this, this is what America is all about. Like you said, no hanging chads, we didn’t see any Black Panthers with baseball bats. These were good, American folks going to do their patriotic duty." Remember: Black Panthers are not good Americans. And that toad-faced fuck needs to be socked in the sack. (Side note: "Dixville Notch" sounds like a cute name for "vagina.")
2. New York Times columnist David Brooks, who twists history like a pair of contortionists trying to have sex in a tiny box. In today's version of "No, Really, I'm Not a Smug Elitist Cockmonger," Brooks tries to figure out "Where Are the Liberals?" His answer, strangely, is not that a prolonged period of demonization by the American right, stretching back to at least Reagan, if not Nixon, echoed by the corporate media with little or no actual dissent being allowed a fair hearing for at least three decades (and possible four), gave the self-identifier "liberal" the same connotation as "Communist traitor piece of shit who'll stab Uncle Sam with an American flag and beat Lady Liberty to death with a bald eagle corpse," compounded by a raping of the remnants of liberalism in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. No, strangely, Brooks does not mention any of that. Instead, he blames mistrust of the federal government and the way that both Democrats and Republicans work for the benefit of the wealthy, although sometimes for people that average white people don't like. Oddly, Brooks doesn't mention that it was Republicans who worked to turn Americans against believing that the government could make their lives easier and, in doing so, made it so that government could make corporate lives easier, lying that making corporate lives easier makes the average citizen's life easier, thus making the average citizen's life harder and, with the aforementioned demonization of anything even vaguely liberal under the hated (and wrong) banner of socialism, Americans had nowhere to turn but to ignorance, God and guns, don't you know, which is easily manipulated by the aforementioned media and the aforementioned politicians, and that, if Brooks were honest, which he is most emphatically not, he would say that individual liberal beliefs actually poll quite well, but because the only organizing philosophy is hated liberalism, which is...and, oh, hell, it'd just be easier to kick Brooks in the nads and walk away.
3. Presidential candidate Rick Santorum, who said yesterday that it's snobby to think that all kids should go to college. No, really: "Who are you? Who are you to say that every child in America go...I mean the hubris of this president to think that he knows what’s best for you. I...you know there is...I have seven kids. Maybe they’ll all go to college. But, if one of my kids wants to go and be an auto mechanic, good for him. That’s a good-paying job – using your hands and using your mind. This is the kind of, the kind of snobbery that we see from those who think they know how to run our lives. Rise up America. Defend your own freedoms."
First off, a starting auto mechanic makes around $30,000 a year in New Hampshire, so, hey, Rick Santorum's kids, your Dad wants you to live at less than 1.5 times the poverty level for a family of four (and you will breed, being Rick Santorum's kids).
Second off, what the motherfuck is Santorum talking about? As Charles Blow points out, President Obama has never said that: "The president has consistently framed the discussion as one of making high school graduates both college- and career-ready. And even when speaking about learning after high school, he has often included both higher education and vocational training."
And, third off, when did it stop being the dream of Americans to want their kids to go to school so they could get an education? And how does it require rising up to defend freedom? Wasn't the point of Santorum's "my grandpa was a filthy coal miner" story about how generations of Americans get opportunities because of the work of their parents?
Jesus, on the list of things a conservative could attack Obama on, the hope that children get educated should probably be below "choice of dog breed" and "that weird mole."
1. Fox "news" Radio reporter Todd Starnes, who, waxing patriotic to Sean Hannity about the white people of Dixville Notch, New Hampshire, voting in their primary this morning, really said, "I love this, this is what America is all about. Like you said, no hanging chads, we didn’t see any Black Panthers with baseball bats. These were good, American folks going to do their patriotic duty." Remember: Black Panthers are not good Americans. And that toad-faced fuck needs to be socked in the sack. (Side note: "Dixville Notch" sounds like a cute name for "vagina.")
2. New York Times columnist David Brooks, who twists history like a pair of contortionists trying to have sex in a tiny box. In today's version of "No, Really, I'm Not a Smug Elitist Cockmonger," Brooks tries to figure out "Where Are the Liberals?" His answer, strangely, is not that a prolonged period of demonization by the American right, stretching back to at least Reagan, if not Nixon, echoed by the corporate media with little or no actual dissent being allowed a fair hearing for at least three decades (and possible four), gave the self-identifier "liberal" the same connotation as "Communist traitor piece of shit who'll stab Uncle Sam with an American flag and beat Lady Liberty to death with a bald eagle corpse," compounded by a raping of the remnants of liberalism in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. No, strangely, Brooks does not mention any of that. Instead, he blames mistrust of the federal government and the way that both Democrats and Republicans work for the benefit of the wealthy, although sometimes for people that average white people don't like. Oddly, Brooks doesn't mention that it was Republicans who worked to turn Americans against believing that the government could make their lives easier and, in doing so, made it so that government could make corporate lives easier, lying that making corporate lives easier makes the average citizen's life easier, thus making the average citizen's life harder and, with the aforementioned demonization of anything even vaguely liberal under the hated (and wrong) banner of socialism, Americans had nowhere to turn but to ignorance, God and guns, don't you know, which is easily manipulated by the aforementioned media and the aforementioned politicians, and that, if Brooks were honest, which he is most emphatically not, he would say that individual liberal beliefs actually poll quite well, but because the only organizing philosophy is hated liberalism, which is...and, oh, hell, it'd just be easier to kick Brooks in the nads and walk away.
3. Presidential candidate Rick Santorum, who said yesterday that it's snobby to think that all kids should go to college. No, really: "Who are you? Who are you to say that every child in America go...I mean the hubris of this president to think that he knows what’s best for you. I...you know there is...I have seven kids. Maybe they’ll all go to college. But, if one of my kids wants to go and be an auto mechanic, good for him. That’s a good-paying job – using your hands and using your mind. This is the kind of, the kind of snobbery that we see from those who think they know how to run our lives. Rise up America. Defend your own freedoms."
First off, a starting auto mechanic makes around $30,000 a year in New Hampshire, so, hey, Rick Santorum's kids, your Dad wants you to live at less than 1.5 times the poverty level for a family of four (and you will breed, being Rick Santorum's kids).
Second off, what the motherfuck is Santorum talking about? As Charles Blow points out, President Obama has never said that: "The president has consistently framed the discussion as one of making high school graduates both college- and career-ready. And even when speaking about learning after high school, he has often included both higher education and vocational training."
And, third off, when did it stop being the dream of Americans to want their kids to go to school so they could get an education? And how does it require rising up to defend freedom? Wasn't the point of Santorum's "my grandpa was a filthy coal miner" story about how generations of Americans get opportunities because of the work of their parents?
Jesus, on the list of things a conservative could attack Obama on, the hope that children get educated should probably be below "choice of dog breed" and "that weird mole."
1/09/2012
Hey, Media: It's Not About Romney; It's About Money:
On June 13, 2011, the Rude Pundit took to the Twitter machine and tapped out the following: "Christ, do we really have to live through the next 17 months until Obama beats Romney? Do we have to go through this?" The reason he brings this up is not to say that, on a bad day, when he's at the end of a three-day tequila and ecstasy binge, and he's not sure what city he's in, whose vomit is on the pillow, and whether that naked guy in the corner is breathing, he's smarter than every mainstream political prognosticator. True as that might be, that's not the point here (and, hey, he might turn out to be wrong in November [he won't be]). No, there's another reason the Rude Pundit is shamelessly touting his tweet - yeah, he's gonna punch himself in the balls for writing that phrase - and it's got less to do with the candidates than with the mighty media itself.
This morning, on MSNBC's Goatee-Flaunting with Chuck Todd, the significantly bewhiskered host declared former Governor Mitt Romney as the frontrunner by far in the New Hampshire primary and then talked about the battle for second place, sighing, "because we have to make a story about something here" (or words to that effect).
See, it's not that the Rude Pundit was so fucking prescient in his June declaration that he's never wavered from, not when Rick Perry jumped into the race, not when Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul had their surges. It's that everyone has known all along that it was gonna be Romney. Members of the media (and a good many people in Blogsylvania) have kept alive a narrative of competition where none exists, hoping beyond hope that this will become another Obama/Clinton slog through the winter and spring instead of the tedious wait on the inevitable occurring.
In doing so, nearly every reporter has missed the opportunity to cover the real story of this primary (and, truly, of almost every election in this country): the reason that Mitt Romney is winning is because there is no one who can touch him on money. Whether it's campaign contributions or PACs, this nomination process was over before it began because the very, very rich Romney is Wall Street's pick. This is not news. But with the rise of Super PACs in the wake of the Citizens United decision and the no-ceiling spending they can engage in under the guise of "free speech" (remember: if money equals speech, then some people have more speech than others, no?), we've moved into a new realm of crazy. That's news. Big-time fucking news. But it's pathetic when Stephen Colbert is one of the only media figures making the effort to expose how corrupting Super PACs are.
In other words, the real story of this primary process, the first presidential election since Citizens United, has been consciously ignored when, indeed, it is more significant than who Republicans pick to lose to President Obama. On the Meet the Press debate yesterday, host David Gregory came precariously close to making it a real topic. Asking Romney about the tidal wave of Super PAC ads that destroyed Newt Gingrich, Gregory brought up Gingrich's strategy to destroy Romney: "Are you consistent now as you're preparing to launch against Governor Romney?" Gingrich said he was. Gregory asked them, "Would you both agree to take these Super PAC ads down?" They would not agree. Dangerously close to actually talking about something important, Gregory moved on.
A more interesting moment occurred after the debate on MSNBC, when Chris Matthews spoke to Romney lackey John Sununu (who is strangely still alive) over the Super PAC spending. After defending Romney and the ads, Sununu said, "The law should be changed. Everybody, every candidate agrees the law should be changed. Nobody likes that law, but unfortunately, bad legislation put the Supreme Court in a position where [it] had to make that decision." Sununu was referring, of course, to the McCain-Feingold campaign spending law as the "bad legislation." But you got that? Nobody likes the law. But it is the law. And the Super PAC ads are a legal abrogation of an open, fair electoral process. There are others, but it is certainly the most egregious. Like Gregory, Matthews touched on it and backed away.
During the debate, Gingrich pushed Romney: "Governor, I wish you would calmly and directly state it is your former staff running the PAC, it is your millionaire friends giving to the PAC." Romney wouldn't deny it. Gingrich could have used that as a leaping off point to attack the campaign laws and Super PACs, but he couldn't because not only does Gingrich have one supporting him, not only is it about to launch a campaign attacking Romney for being a heartless capitalist (an odd strategy in a Republican primary), but one of Newt Gingrich's billionaire friends just donated $5 million to the pro-Gingrich Super PAC.
Of Republicans, only Buddy Roemer is speaking out against the current campaign finance laws. Roemer has more experience in government than Romney. Of course, he doesn't have the cash. And, of course, almost no one in the media gives a shit what he has to say.
On June 13, 2011, the Rude Pundit took to the Twitter machine and tapped out the following: "Christ, do we really have to live through the next 17 months until Obama beats Romney? Do we have to go through this?" The reason he brings this up is not to say that, on a bad day, when he's at the end of a three-day tequila and ecstasy binge, and he's not sure what city he's in, whose vomit is on the pillow, and whether that naked guy in the corner is breathing, he's smarter than every mainstream political prognosticator. True as that might be, that's not the point here (and, hey, he might turn out to be wrong in November [he won't be]). No, there's another reason the Rude Pundit is shamelessly touting his tweet - yeah, he's gonna punch himself in the balls for writing that phrase - and it's got less to do with the candidates than with the mighty media itself.
This morning, on MSNBC's Goatee-Flaunting with Chuck Todd, the significantly bewhiskered host declared former Governor Mitt Romney as the frontrunner by far in the New Hampshire primary and then talked about the battle for second place, sighing, "because we have to make a story about something here" (or words to that effect).
See, it's not that the Rude Pundit was so fucking prescient in his June declaration that he's never wavered from, not when Rick Perry jumped into the race, not when Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul had their surges. It's that everyone has known all along that it was gonna be Romney. Members of the media (and a good many people in Blogsylvania) have kept alive a narrative of competition where none exists, hoping beyond hope that this will become another Obama/Clinton slog through the winter and spring instead of the tedious wait on the inevitable occurring.
In doing so, nearly every reporter has missed the opportunity to cover the real story of this primary (and, truly, of almost every election in this country): the reason that Mitt Romney is winning is because there is no one who can touch him on money. Whether it's campaign contributions or PACs, this nomination process was over before it began because the very, very rich Romney is Wall Street's pick. This is not news. But with the rise of Super PACs in the wake of the Citizens United decision and the no-ceiling spending they can engage in under the guise of "free speech" (remember: if money equals speech, then some people have more speech than others, no?), we've moved into a new realm of crazy. That's news. Big-time fucking news. But it's pathetic when Stephen Colbert is one of the only media figures making the effort to expose how corrupting Super PACs are.
In other words, the real story of this primary process, the first presidential election since Citizens United, has been consciously ignored when, indeed, it is more significant than who Republicans pick to lose to President Obama. On the Meet the Press debate yesterday, host David Gregory came precariously close to making it a real topic. Asking Romney about the tidal wave of Super PAC ads that destroyed Newt Gingrich, Gregory brought up Gingrich's strategy to destroy Romney: "Are you consistent now as you're preparing to launch against Governor Romney?" Gingrich said he was. Gregory asked them, "Would you both agree to take these Super PAC ads down?" They would not agree. Dangerously close to actually talking about something important, Gregory moved on.
A more interesting moment occurred after the debate on MSNBC, when Chris Matthews spoke to Romney lackey John Sununu (who is strangely still alive) over the Super PAC spending. After defending Romney and the ads, Sununu said, "The law should be changed. Everybody, every candidate agrees the law should be changed. Nobody likes that law, but unfortunately, bad legislation put the Supreme Court in a position where [it] had to make that decision." Sununu was referring, of course, to the McCain-Feingold campaign spending law as the "bad legislation." But you got that? Nobody likes the law. But it is the law. And the Super PAC ads are a legal abrogation of an open, fair electoral process. There are others, but it is certainly the most egregious. Like Gregory, Matthews touched on it and backed away.
During the debate, Gingrich pushed Romney: "Governor, I wish you would calmly and directly state it is your former staff running the PAC, it is your millionaire friends giving to the PAC." Romney wouldn't deny it. Gingrich could have used that as a leaping off point to attack the campaign laws and Super PACs, but he couldn't because not only does Gingrich have one supporting him, not only is it about to launch a campaign attacking Romney for being a heartless capitalist (an odd strategy in a Republican primary), but one of Newt Gingrich's billionaire friends just donated $5 million to the pro-Gingrich Super PAC.
Of Republicans, only Buddy Roemer is speaking out against the current campaign finance laws. Roemer has more experience in government than Romney. Of course, he doesn't have the cash. And, of course, almost no one in the media gives a shit what he has to say.
