Republicans & Conservatives

Publicizing Conservative Criminals

Bob Fertik — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 21:51:27 -0400

Matt Stoller published a letter from rightwing financier Howard Rich threatening to publicize the names of donors to progressive causes. Rich offered no reason for publicizing the names, but suggested they would be tied to any criminal actions these causes might engage in, including voter registration fraud.

Obviously these threats against progressive donors are outrageous. But let's use Rich's framework and turn the mirror around to conservative causes and their supporters.

Voter registration fraud is about as harmless a crime as there is. If a lazy voter registration worker turns in a registration in the name of "Mickey Mouse," that will not produce an election-changing vote unless "Mickey Mouse" shows up to vote with a valid photo ID. What are the chances of that?

Conservative groups, on the other hand, have committed the most heinous of crimes - include promoting the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which is a war crime under the Geneva conventions.

So when will conservative advocates of war crimes be "publicized" - both groups like PNAC, their funders, and their ideological advocates?

My Favorite Things (conservatives' version): musical Flash animation

ThinkerFeeler — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:49:57 -0400

Check out this Flash animation of the song "My Favorite Things (conservatives' version)"

http://truthsite.org/politics/Presentations/FavoriteThingsGuitar.html

Don

GOP = GROSS OLD PERVERTS

mikekohr — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 20:44:38 -0500

In the last 23 months 10 Republican perverts have been exposed: Richard Curtis ®WA, Larry Craig ®ID, Bob Allen ®FL, Mark Foley ®FL, Michael A. Flory ®MI, Glen Murphy ®IN, John D.R. Atchison ®FL, Dennis Gallagher ®NY, Randall Tobias ® DC, David Vitter ® LA.

This rogues gallery accounts for at least 7 cases of infidelity, 6 cases of homosexual sex, 5 cases of prostitution/solicitation, 3 cases of rape/sexual assault, 2 cases of pedophilia, and 10 cases of hypocrisy.

The Republican party is the party of "Family Values," if your idea of a family is the Manson Family.

mike kohr

Will Hillary Drive the GOP to Political Suicide?

Bob Fertik — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:38:43 -0400

hwc notes that the biggest winner of yesterday's Republican debate was... Hillary!

I think it is more than fair to say that our girl Hillary has well and truly gotten in the heads of the angry white men in the Republican party. She has them in a full-blown tizzie and that is the best thing that could ever happen for Democratic Party chances in November 2008. Why?

I would suggest three reasons:

1. By attacking her every waking moment of every waking day, the Republicans are providing a blueprint for their fall campaigns. Penn, Wolfson, and Bill will take this playbook and use it to prepare a brutal gameplan to counter every strike. Even more, the Republicans outlined positions against Social Security, health care, and reployment from Iraq that are wildly unpopular with the electorate. The red-meat audience boo'd Ron Paul for saying he would pull troops out of Iraq.

2. Their efforts to demonize Hillary won't work. If Hillary Clinton is anything on the campaign trail, it's disciplined, focuses, serious, competent, and prepared. When voters see her, on TV or in person, they may or may not like her. They may or may not support her. But, they don't see some wild, crazy monster. Thus the opposite. It is Romney and Rudy who appear to be frothing at the mouth when they speak of Hillary.

3. I keep saying this, but gender is the overriding dynamic in the 2008 election. 54% of the voters are women and the majority of those support Hillary Clinton and the idea of a history-making election. There is an emotional attachment to the election the first female President and this emotion will become even stronger once Hillary is the nominee. These angry white men attacking the female candidate, not on policy issues, but like crazy abusive husbands is going to trigger a deeply emotional response. Not just among women, but among other groups who have felt the wrath of what Bill O'Reilly calls "the traditional white male power structure". The two Republican front-runners, Rudy and Mitt, are already at the point of "pulling a Lazio" and alienating wide swaths of American voters. They think they can use attacks on Hillary to energize their base, but their attacks are actually more likely to energize women voters (54% of the electorate), African American voters, Latino/a voters, Asian American voters, gay voters, and so on and so forth.

For those who didn't follow Hillary's 2000 Senate race in NY, "pulling a Lazio" means aggressively walking across the stage during the most-watched debate to thrust some piece of paper in Hillary's face. While former Rep. Rick Lazio was seen as someone who could unite the anti-Hillary vote (both male and female) to beat her, his assault on Hillary's "space" turned all the undecided women into Hillary supporters.

So yesterday's debate raises a fascinating question: could Hillary make Republicans so blind with rage that their collective heads explode, taking the entire Republican Party with them?

Pope Versus President

Heather Wokusch — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 12:26:07 -0400

The Vatican’s recent snub of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is only the latest salvo in the battle between Pope Benedict XVI and President George W. Bush. This tug of war has profound implications for both U.S. foreign policy and the critical Catholic vote in 2008's presidential race.

Overlapping Agendas

Things haven't always been tense between Bush and Benedict. They share similar views regarding abortion, gay marriage, and other hot-button conservative issues. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (as Benedict was known before becoming Pope in April 2005) even helped Bush secure the White House for a second term.

Specifically, after Bush visited the Vatican in June 2004, complaining that "Not all the American bishops are with me," Ratzinger sent a letter to US bishops, ordering them to refuse Communion to "a Catholic politician … consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws" - a thinly-veiled reference to John Kerry. Ratzinger added that any person even voting for this Catholic politician would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion." Probably no surprise, then, that Bush increased his margin among Catholics by 6% from 2000 to 2004.

In an interesting twist, Ratzinger also partnered with George W. Bush's brother Neil in a foundation "to promote ecumenical understanding and publish original religious texts" in 1999. Oddly enough, business credit reports listed the foundation as a "management trust for purposes other than education, religion, charity or research," leaving the true nature of the Neil Bush/Cardinal Ratzinger venture unclear.

In 2005, Ratzinger was named as a defendant in a U.S. lawsuit suit accusing him of conspiring to cover up the sexual abuse of minors. At the center of the controversy was a May 2001 confidential letter he had sent Catholic bishops across the world ordering them to keep evidence of the sexual abuse of minors by clergy secret until 10 years after the child had reached adult status.

Soon after becoming Pope, however, Ratzinger was dismissed from the case. A US federal judge decided the lawsuit would be incompatible with the United States' foreign policy interests."

Disagreements Multiply

On many contentious issues since then, Pope Benedict XVI has disagreed with the Bush administration's policies, but only politely and indirectly. For example, Benedict has spoken in favor of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is often at loggerheads with Bush administration foreign policy.

Similarly, Benedict's Vatican has taken a firm stance against global warming, even acquiring a carbon offset forest to make the Vatican the first entirely carbon neutral sovereign state." He has called for greater international co-operation to fight ozone depletion, yet not overtly criticized White House foot-dragging in that area.

The gloves came off, however, regarding the war in Iraq. In a May 2003 interview, Ratzinger said, "There was not sufficient reasons to unleash a war in Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war.'"

The U.S. invasion of Iraq was similarly contentious for former Pope John Paul II, who sent a special envoy to the White House in March 2003 in an effort to prevent an attack. The papal envoy's pleas fell on deaf ears.

Vatican criticisms of the Bush administration’s military intervention in Iraq have continued unabated. French Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, head of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, told an Italian magazine in August 2007, "The facts speak for themselves. Alienating the international community (with the U.S. push for war) was a mistake." Tauran, who has referred to the invasion and occupation as a "crime against peace," also said that Christians in Iraq "paradoxically, were more protected under the dictatorship" of Saddam Hussein.

Rice Rebuffed

As such, it is perhaps unsurprising that Benedict failed to honor Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's urgent request for a private meeting last month. The Italian periodical Corriere della Sera reported that Rice was hoping to capitalize on the Pope's moral authority by having a papal audience focused on the Middle East. Instead, Rice was told that Benedict was on holiday and had to settle for a telephone conversation with a lower Vatican official.

The ongoing tensions between Bush and Benedict over Iraq put America's over 75 million Roman Catholics in a tricky position for 2008. By supporting candidates hawkish on the Bush administration's Iraq policies, are they defying the Pope and the Catholic Church?

For its part, the powerful United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has taken a firm stance against the US presence in Iraq. A July 2007 letter to House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH), USCCB noted, “The current situation in Iraq is unacceptable and unsustainable, as is the policy and political stalemate among decision makers in Washington … our nation must have the moral courage to change course in Iraq.”

Dissent is swelling up from the grassroots as well. In August 2007, an alliance of religious groups calling itself Catholics for an End to War collected 10,000 signatures for an online petition “urging leaders to commit to a responsible withdrawal of U.S. troops.” Sister Simone Campbell of the national Catholic social justice lobby NETWORK said, "Church leaders and individual Catholics have opposed U.S. policy in Iraq since before the war began," adding that the petition “lets thousands of Catholics unite to speak out even more strongly for an end to the violence and occupation.”

In other words, being dovish on Iraq might help the next Democratic presidential contender win Roman Catholic votes. Whether the current front-runners qualify for that distinction, however, is another matter.

This article first appeared in Foreign Policy in Focus. Heather Wokusch is the author of The Progressives’ Handbook series, and can be contacted at www.HeatherWokusch.com .

Homophobia is the Only Republican "Value"

Bob Fertik — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:27:09 -0400

What does it take to be expelled from the GOP? Emptywheel nails it as always:

When David Vitter admitted to using a prostitute service, no Republicans asked him to resign.

When it became clear that Pete Domenici had asked Bush and Gonzales to fire David Iglesias because the US Attorney didn't trump up charges against Democrats, no Republicans asked him to resign.

When it became clear that Bob Ney and Ted Stevens and John Doolittle and Don Young had been paid in exchange for legislative favors (that is, had accepted bribes), no Republicans asked them to resign.

When Tom DeLay was indicted for money laundering, no Republicans asked him to resign.

But because Larry Craig wiggled his foot under a men's bathroom stall, Pete Hoekstra and Norm Coleman and John McCain have asked him to resign.

Of course if politicians had to declare their sexuality on their campaign reports, I'm sure we'd find just as many gay Republicans as Democrats.

And if they had to declare the abortions they've had or caused, I'm sure we'd find just as many Republicans as Democrats.

Yet somehow the GOP has a "lock" on religious right voters whose top issues are homosexuality and abortion.

Can someone explain to me how Republicans get away with this institutional hypocrisy? Is it simply because religious right leaders like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and the late Jerry Falwell are/were just Republican stooges?

Update 1: Kos highlights rightwing homophobia in his typical hatemail:

From: chuckrod@xxxx

This is the most lacking website I think I've ever seen. Fuck you is the ass on this one. you people are borderline if not completely retarded. I dare you to reply to my e-mail. you don't have the balls, you people remind me of Hitler's bunch, all talk. I would bet your all a bunch of little faggots circle-jerking each other. Your gaggle of faggots do not represent the fighting soul instilled in real Americans, something you will never be. Move your pathetic ass to Mexico, or Iraq, somewhere that your ideaology fits. 3rd world, hide behind your keyboard, if you walked out in public and said the shit you say in these little coward pages you'd have your ass beat down

Two things immediately stand out: 1) "Hitler's bunch" weren't "all talk". That was sort of the problem with them. They acted. And 2) just about every single one of these hatemails include virulently anti-gay rhetoric, a real hallmark of the O'Reilly Right. For a group that is supposedly "outraged" at the "hate" on Daily Kos, they exhibit a venomous hatred of homosexuality beyond any reason.

In any case, given this guy's ideology, and that of the majority of O'Reilly acolytes who email the site, I would recommend they move to Saudi Arabia. That anti-gay, anti-woman, hyper-conservative theocracy fits their ideology to a "t".

Indeed.

Voices of the Right

Bob Fertik — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:12:23 -0400

I had the pleasure of meeting TRex the 80-foot therapod at YearlyKos and once again today he touches on something no one else can so brilliantly describe - the amazingly awful voices of the Busheviks.

I think the thing that made me most want to throttle the little pock-marked pissant was his Spongebob on Helium voice. Oh, my sweet, gentle Jesus, could any male person over the age of eight sound less authoritative? All it took was even the briefest sound byte of his whiny, paper-thin, less-than-dulcet tones, “Ah don’t recawll that, Cawngressman” and I’d be seized with the sudden urge to club a baby seal to death.

Of course, the bad news is that they seem to be considering the only man in America with an even more annoying voice to take his place, Michael “Squeaky” Chertoff. I have to ask, what the hell is it with Bush appointees and their obnoxiously high-pitched voices? Every time Monica Goodling opens her mouth, dogs for miles begin to whimper and bleed from the ears. And don’t even get me started on Bradley Schlozman. Dolphins can’t even hear that guy.

Granted, Alberto Gonzales’s crimes against my eardrums pale next to his crimes against the American people, the US Constitution, and anyone unfortunate enough to be detained by US forces at Guantanamo or in any of the “black sites” operated under the Bush Administration’s perverse concept of “justice”. Still, though, I can’t help but breathe a sigh of relief that the little turd is retiring from public life. If we could just persuade him to take a permanent vow of silence, my happiness would be complete.

Unless, of course, he wants to speak under oath. That, and only that, is the one thing I believe we could make an exception for.

You go, TRex!

Republican Congressman Blames His Gay Sex on His Fear of Black Men

davidswanson — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 19:39:42 -0400

According to news reports, Florida Representative Bob Allen (Republican) was arrested last July 11 for soliciting sex from an undercover black male cop. The reason he gave was his fear of black men...

Now many will quickly ask what rational person would believe such a cockamamy story ?

But hold on, now.. READ THE REST

Conservatives Call for Bush's Impeachment

Chip — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 19:14:21 -0400

A while ago I suggested that the pro-impeachment coalition join with the anti-illegal immigration forces because of Bush's treason in not securing our country's borders and not enforcing our existing immigration laws. Non-enforcement of existing laws has made this a complex issue, but the complexities can be simplified by enforcing the existing laws.

If we sincerely believe that impeachment is a patriotic imperative, then we also must take a honest look at why we would not join with conservatives to insist that our national sovereignty be protected by enforcing existing immigration laws before any new laws are contemplated, much less enacted. For the government to simply say: "Whoops, we let this get out of control, so now we want to fix by repeating the mistakes of twenty years ago" is unacceptable - and will result in even bigger future problems.

Of course, from the standpoint of political ideology, it's understandable that suggestion would receive a lukewarm reception. So, here are a few actual postings that lead me to conclude that the pro-impeachment coalition should team up with the anti-illegal immigrant forces. Can you imagine yourself agreeing with any of the sentiments?

I have been a bushbot for the past six-and-a-half years. I defended the man through thick and thin, but his insistence upon granting amnesty to illegals was the last straw. I am all for letting the Democrats impeach him, because it will keep him too busy during the last 18-months of his term to get even with us for thwarting him.
Today? I believe that the government purposely leaves the border unprotected and interior laws unenforced. I believe that the Republican Party is a globalist corporatist party that elects men who promote a Third World invasion of our nation for their corporate lobby financers. I have researched the lies perpetuated by the MSM, and realise they have basically been lying about everything this entire time.
No easy answer. Bush still holds the power. We have a President that will not enforce our borders or help to punish employers of illegals. It's going to be a hard nut to crack. Bush may now even do less as a way of getting back. It looks like it is going to be up to the individual states for a while, until we elect someone will to protect this country. Impeachment has a nice ring to it!
It's time we now demand Bush's impeachment--this can also be done by the immigration restrictionist websites. We have a right to expect the President, who swore an oath, to uphold the laws of the land. Bush has refused to for 7 years, now the time has come for his impeachment and it must be us, the Republican base, who leads this charge.
If we can get him impeached, no President in the future will dare try this stunt again!!!!
Let's get this man impeached!!!!!!

You're right - a lot of us did a lot of calling, faxing, visiting senate offices in person, e mailing, etc. We need to follow through with impeachment. Some say it won't help since Bush has a little over 1 yr left, but if anything, it'll send a helluva message!!
Help prevent another bloody revolution...IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY
I voted for Bush twice (best of bad choices) Can't we help get him impeached? No wonder everyone hates his guts. He thinks he knows what is best for us, so he can't tell us what he's doing or why. Reminds me of that old 60's song that goes "...you can't even run your own life, I'll be damned if you'll run mine."

If you can, then we are a step closer to impeachment of the lawless Bush and Cheney when we recognize that these are the sentiments of conservatives. It shouldn't be too surprising that an executive branch that has acted as though it was above the law - indeed, validates that by commuting Scooter Libby's prison sentence - would propose a solution to indemnify lawbreakers from the legal consequences of their actions, to the benefit of their corporate benefactors whose profits increase from the lower labor costs of non-unionized illegal workers.

Hello? Inspector Kluso? Who's Stopping Feingold?

Chip — Wed, 09 May 2007 11:39:23 -0400

Who would have thought that legislation can be held up - anonymously? What about government transparency? This just in from Senator Russ "Fearless" Feingold. If you can help, please do! Fearless writes:

A Republican Senator is trying to derail my campaign finance disclosure bill, and I need your help to figure out who it is.

My legislation, the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act (S. 223), requires Senate campaigns to submit campaign finance reports electronically. Sounds simple enough doesn't it? House campaigns, political parties, Presidential campaigns, and even 527's already file their reports online – but that's not the case in the Senate.

The Senate has exempted themselves from this requirement and is only required to file paper reports. The public's ability to review these reports in a timely manner is substantially curtailed by these antiquated paper filings. Not only that, it costs taxpayers over $250,000 per year to have these reports scanned and made available online at a much later date.

When Senator Feinstein and I sought to pass this legislation by unanimous consent, an objection was voiced on the floor "on behalf of a Republican senator." Senators are within their rights to object to a bill coming to the floor of the Senate, but the objecting senator has not been named, and no one has spoken to me about any objection they may have to this legislation.

The use of these so-called "secret holds" has rightly come under attack in recent years, and I need your help to try and determine who may be delaying this common sense reform measure.

If you are represented by a Republican senator, please contact them and ask if they're holding up my Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act. You can get contact info for your senators here. If you live in a state with two Democratic senators, consider forwarding this email to your friends in states that aren't so lucky.

If you learn of anything that may be useful in helping me identify the "Secret Hold Senator," email me at russ@progressivepatriotsfund.com.

I have no intention of dropping this issue and I appreciate your help in keeping the pressure on to try and identify this anonymous objector.