Public vs. Anonymous, and Partisanship in the Age of Trump

Nope, didn't get the appeal way back then either.
Image from World of Wonder.

I got myself into a little bit of trouble yesterday. Someone I work with was either alarmed, offended or simply disagreed with something I had written online that appeared on their Facebook newsfeed.* I don't know what it was--I actually hadn't posted anything overtly political directly on my Facebook wall in some time--and we quickly dropped the subject. But it opened my eyes a bit about the pros and cons of being "open" online, vs. being anonymous, as well as the difficulty in holding your online tongue in an age of hyper partisanship.

I've been blogging since 2007, and before that, had an online presence stretching back to the days of Prodigy. But it wasn't until the beginning of the blog that I became transparent, and easily searchable. Much of the world is the same way. We write under our own names, with our own pictures and much of our own bios easily readable and knowable. We don't hide behind cute internet handles or pseudonyms. Which can give a person a bit of credibility, and accountability. But also, it can take away privacy (nothing on the internet is ever really gone). And it can get you into trouble if you say something that runs contrary to the beliefs, politics or sensibilities of other people you know.

Likewise, I didn't (and don't) understand the Clinton hate in 1992.
Image from ABC News.

So, I have a bit of a problem. I'm too entrenched in my behavior, and have already written too much publicly, to try to change my stripes now.  I mean, I can be more thoughtful and careful about what I say and how I say it. In fact, I probably will consider my words a bit more carefully, at least while this incident remains fresh in mind. But, what I've said is already out there. And my behavior patterns are difficult to break. I tweeted two or three things later that day, and only pondered their content afterward. Oops. But, also, we live in an environment of extreme partisanship on virtually every issue. And there are times when holding back, and not contributing is very difficult for a person who has political blogging as a hobby!

And let's talk about the political side for just a second. Everybody knows that in business and personal relationships, politics and religion are conversational minefields. But I think that it is obvious that this political season is quite simply different. It has elements that aren't simply right vs. left, conservative vs. liberal. The two main figures in the presidential battle are individuals widely loathed by huge segments the public. But while one, Hillary Clinton, is despised through an almost completely political prism, the other has only become explicitly political relatively recently.

Yes, Donald Trump has been in the media spotlight for decades. Until 2015, it was perfectly reasonable and acceptable to despise him as a superficial reality TV star, a libidinous, philandering shyster, with an abrasive personality. I personally have never understood his appeal, except as a curiosity and a target for humor. I didn't like him during the Ivana era, the Marla Maples days, The Art of the Deal, his many media utterances, and his more recent career as host of The Apprentice/The Celebrity Apprentice. If anything, my estimation of the man went down along the way.

Both loathed, but for different reasons.
Image from Restate.

And now here we are with Trump as the Republican candidate for president, and all of that baggage follows. If I were a Republican (still), I'd still despise Trump. I think this is borne out by the turmoil his candidacy has put the GOP through. So, I don't see my anti-Trump attitudes, beliefs and advocacy as a purely political thing. Yes, if the candidate was Jeb Bush or Ted Cruze, I'd still be for Hillary Clinton. But the arguments, the advocacy, everything would be very, very different.

If I were seeing Jeb! or Cruz signs in yards, I wouldn't question the judgment, taste or intelligence of the folks who put them there. With Trump, I can't help it. How does someone look at this guy, listen to this guy, and say, "Yeah! That's my guy!" I can't see it. And I do understand that there are people who say the same thing about Hillary Clinton, but the difference is, that's almost entirely politically based. Also accumulated over decades, but overtly partisan, and drenched thoroughly with questionable sourcing, innuendo, and opposition research.

So, the antipathy toward both candidates is similar in that it has been fostered for almost exactly the same amount of time (Trump has actually been nationally known for longer, probably), but comes from an entirely different place. Could my loathing of Donald Trump be colored by vague discomfort with his public persona, just as "colored" by perception as the political sourness a conservative might feel against Clinton? Maybe. I'll concede that, but only to a degree. Because I can honestly say that absent politics, I'd still have a strong negative reaction to Trump, in virtually any context.

Despite the honest disliking of this individual going back decades, it is unfortunately true that my personal anti-Trump campaign will be seen by many or most as a purely political position. Everything these days comes down to a black and white, binary partisan divide. But since I am a transparently open internet presence (if only to the random people who might look me up), I thought this explanation might at least provide context.

*On a tangent, the problem with being public on Facebook, and commenting transparently, is that Facebook itself will "feed" commentary made on other pages, even other websites, to Facebook followers and friends. Most people will never see your comment over at Huffington Post, but it could appear on anyone's at any time. Apparently, this time, something I said that was maybe particularly pointed landed upon this person's feed. I still don't know what it was, but am relatively certain it was pro-Clinton or anti-Trump. 

Conservatives Want to Live in the Bubble?

Image from source, Salon

It's no secret that we're a divided country these days, with a left, a far right, and a silent middle. Notice I didn't say "far left." That's because as far as I can tell, there isn't much of one, beyond Noam Chomsky. Of course, even moderate liberals look far left by comparison to the right, whose mainstream has been supplanted by its fringe edge. So, I guess you could say that there isn't much of a far right either, because what in the world would the fringe of the fringe look like? I mean, when Cliven Bundy is a hero?

Anyway, that's the oddity of our politics. But what's interesting, not only are we divided, but it appears we really, really want to be divided. Particularly in the case of conservatives.

[Excerpt]

Wingnuts’ sheltered fantasy: This is the far right’s scary myopic vision
 
A recent survey of 10,000 Americans from Pew Research Center for the People and the Press was ostensibly designed to provide proof of the increased polarization of our country. (Spoiler alert: “Republicans and Democrats are more divided along ideological lines – and partisan antipathy is deeper and more extensive – than at any point in the last two decades.”) But the poll, due to its large sample size of both far left and far right respondents, provides quantitative data demonstrating something striking: an extreme right wing that not only hates those on the opposite side of the political spectrum, but also desires to be isolated ethnically, culturally and geographically from the rest of the country. . .

Read more at: Salon

FOX "News" Conservative Guest Debunks Chevy Volt Demonizing

I don't know, it looks nifty to me. Image from HybridCars.com

For reasons I cannot fathom, conservatives love to bash the Chevy Volt hybrid car. Though Chevrolet is an American company, and the Volt is an innovative vehicle, Rush Limbaugh, FOX "News" and thus all of right-wing world despise the car. So, how funny is it that a conservative guest on GOP-TV debunked all the crap they've been flinging at the Volt?

[Excerpt]


Fox News Debunks Right-Wing Lies About Chevy Volt: It’s ‘An Anti-Terrorist Weapon’ And ‘The Safest Car On The Road’

It’s one of the most remarkable interviews ever seen on Fox News. Yesterday, a conservative guest debunked all the destructive myths their pundits having been perpetuating, decrying their “fetish for demonizing the Volt.”

Conservatives, led by Fox News, have been pushing a variety of lies about the Chevy Volt. They’ve falsely asserted that it is unsafe and a creation of the Obama administration, using absurd terms to discourage sales like, “exploding Obamamobiles. . .”

Read more at: Think Progress

Republicans Trust FOX "News". ONLY.

Image from Think Progress

I understand that people of different political persuasions tend to view things slightly differently from each other. For instance, I bristle when I hear that MSNBC is the flip-side to FOX "News." I think that is objectively not true (and stand by that), but I also understand that I'm feeling a bit of "I know you are, but what am I?" when I hear it. So, I believe it is probable that the reverse is true. Conservatives who watch FOX probably are a bit defensive about it, and they probably see MSNBC in the same harsh light that I see FOX. They're wrong, but that's not the point.

The point is, they see all media (other than the 99% of talk radio that is right-wing, which somehow doesn't count) as liberally biased, with only FOX "News" speaking the truth. What is that story? You know, the one where the mother sees her kid marching in a parade, and proudly claims that he's the only one in step? Yeah, this is kinda like that. And it gives credence to my theory that conservatives think any media that isn't right-leaning, is de facto left-leaning.


[Excerpt]


Survey: Republicans Trust Fox News And Nothing Else 

A new PPP poll confirms what many have long suspected — that many Americans get their news from sources that hew to their pre-existing beliefs. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

What Exactly is the Far Left Wing?

I've been pondering this lately, and it brought to mind an old post of mine. What is "far left wing" these days? And really, what is "far right wing?"  Rush Limbaugh (and thus, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Michael Savage) used to be far right wing. They were fringe. They were the equivelant of Morton Downey, Jr. But today? Sean Hannity is a prime time FOX "News" host. The rest (Hannity too) are the biggest ratings earners on AM talk radio.

What this odd change has brought is to bring the far-righty fringe into the mainstream, and to move moderates to the left. So who the freakin' hell are the left, and the far left now? Really, I wanna know. I'm a fan of several leftist personalities, from Randi Rhodes to Thom Hartmann to Rachel Maddow. But they're just left. Not far left, just left. Does anyone else see the bizarre skewing of the political spectrum?

ORIGINAL POST:

So I'm watching Meet the Press and FOX "News" Sunday on the DVR today, and I've heard that President Obama should "move to the middle" or "move to the right" in order to more effectively govern. It's counter-intuitive, since doing this is what his own party thinks he's already done too much of. Despite the ridiculous right-wing image of socialist/Marxist/Communist, the President has made countless gestures to "reach across the aisle" in the health care program, in fiscal policy and elsewhere. The President's descending approval ratings have as much to do with the left's disappointment in his timidity as they do with the right's over the top attacks.

So, I'm digesting this really annoying "conventional wisdom" talking point, and then I hear another one. Senator Evan Bayh--in trying to discount the move-to-the-middle point--said that "far left blogs" were upset with concessions already made to the right. Huh? Who is he talking about there? The biggest left-wing blogs I can think of are Daily Kos, Huffington Post, FireDog Lake, and Democratic Underground. I wouldn't classify any of those as "far left." I'd be willing to bet that Bayh (and every FReeper) would call this blog far left, even though I am a former Republican with a few conservative opinions.

Do some far leftist readers comment at blogs like these (and mine)? Probably. Is there occasionally a post that would be out of the mainstream, even for a solid Democrat? Probably. But by and large, all of those blogs represent merely the left, not the far left. None of them is as staunchly extremist as say FreeRepublic.com, the far right internet outpost. The weird part is, with the mainstreaming of people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck--extremist far right-wingers by any definition--anything left-of-center is now seen as "far left." It isn't. And I didn't like seeing a prominent Democrat furthering that misperception.

RNC Chair Hopefuls No Brain Trust

Image from source, Randi Rhodes

I happen to believe that most occupants (and likely most candidates) for the chairman slot of either the Republican or Democratic National Committees are insufferable. The only one I've been able to stand in a very long time was Howard Dean. I think it is the job requirement of all political spin, all the time. There is very little room for unvarnished, unadulterated truth coming from the head of either organization. So, I'm not overtly partisan when it comes to my opinion of either position. But there is still a difference. Take for example the complete idiocy and/or bigotry coming from the current slate of RNC Chair hopefuls.

[Excerpt]

Dumb & Dumber

. . .It’s a good thing the debate to be the new chair of the RNC isn’t an episode of Jeopardy, because Republicans wouldn’t do too well on “Great Literature” (video below). When the candidates were asked to name their favorite book, chair hopeful Ann Wagner thought they asked for her favorite bar, and said “probably my kitchen table.” When the question was explained to Wagner, she said her favorite book was “George Bush’s new book.” The sad thing is I would vote for a person who sits and drinks at their kitchen table over anyone who would read George Bush’s book. . .

Read more at: Randi Rhodes

GOP Stops Bill Preventing Child Marriage

Image from Barbados Free Press

Did you say, "WTF?!?" as loudly as I just did?

[Excerpt]

GOP shuts down bill to prevent child marriage



Preventing child marriage may seem like the most non-partisan of non-partisan issues, but to Republicans scrambling to deny political victories to a lame-duck Democratic House, it seems to be yet another political football. . .
 
Read more at: Raw Story

Sen. Al Franken Champions Net Neutrality

For as long as I've known of the term, "Net Neutrality" has not been a partisan issue, and has been nearly unanimously thought of as a good thing.  Net Neutrality would ensure that big corporations can't subdivide the internet into categories like cable television; no basic, extended and premium delivery.  Going to Greenlee Gazette should be just as fast and easy as going to any big corporation's site.  

Lately though, as every issue seems to do these days, there's a partisan fight a-brewin'. Anti-neutrality arguments are now being made, turning the tables, saying that Net Neutrality amounts to "government regulation." Some paranoids assign more sinister motives, and claim that President Obama is "taking over" the internet. Whatever.  With all of the non-troversies coming from the right these days, I don't think I'm going to let them sway me without proof. For now, I'm gonna go with Senator Al Franken's take on this.  Because he's good enough, he's smart enough. . .

[Excerpt]
Franken talks net neutrality as FCC visits Minneapolis

Sen. Al Franken spoke out on net neutrality ahead of a Minnesota visit by officials from the Federal Communications Commission to discuss the same issue. The FCC will hold a hearing at South High School in Minneapolis at 6 pm tonight. Franken said on Tuesday that if telecoms have their way, consumers will end up paying much more and have less open access to the internet. . .

Read more at: Minneapolis Independent

Rachel Maddow on Meet the Press with David Gregory

Round tables on Sunday morning political talk shows can be tedious and frustrating. Basically, you gather an even number of pundits/politicians/political operatives--ideally ideologically balanced, but not always--and fire the week's hot political topics at them one-by-one.  Unfortunately, the political knowledge that can be gained by this format is outweighed by politics-as-usual.

Most of the guests on shows like this have a political agenda, and to various degrees have their talking points, hyper-partisan points of view, and focus-tested (thanks, Frank Luntz) verbiage usage.  I'll give you an example.

Republicans are married to a fiscal policy of tax cuts, and reductions in spending. That's their rhetoric, and whether it matches up to political reality or not, they have not shown that this recipe works.  EVER.  "Trickle Down" economics was ridiculed in the waning days of the Reagan Administration, but it is being embraced with gusto by Republicans these days.  On the other hand, economic stimulus (minus the watering down and tax cuts thrown to gain dubious Republican support) does boost the economy.  Unemployment insurance and other "entitlements" as Republicans call them, are some of the best stimulus the economy can get.  People who get these benefits tend to spend them right away, stimulating the economy immediately.

In that example, the second theory can be shown to work in practice, and by logical thinking. The first one (trickle down) can't be shown to work as far as I know. It's wishful thinking.  What do corporations making huge profits really do when they get tax cuts, and thus more profits? Why, they do anything they can to make their profits even bigger, they don't just start hiring tons of new people with all that extra money.  If there's one thing the BP disaster shows us, it is what the culmination of laissez-faire capitalism leads to: Profits above all else, no contingency plans for accidents, no spending on hypothetical future disasters, bogus response plans, shortcuts, dirty deals with government regulators, registering wells in foreign countries for additional tax breaks, more lobbying for further reduced regulations.

But on these Sunday shows, you'll hear the same failed policy ideas trotted out by Ed Gillespie. And David Gregory (or one of the other hosts) set them up, using their own verbiage, and presenting every issue as though both sides are equally weighted.  That's why I love Rachel Maddow.  Sure, you might find her as partisan as Gillespie, and she is. But unlike him, Rachel is not afraid to point out Democrats' failures. She doesn't wear kid gloves around the foibles of the left, and she has a great way of framing an issue that isn't chock-full of "Words that Work" or scripted talking points.  I loved when she said that the Republican mantra of fiscal responsibility was historically "nifty but novel."  In other words, Republicans haven't shown that they deliver what they promise in this area. Brava, Rachel!  Now, if she could just replace Gregory.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Health Care Reform Opponents Turning to Threats, Violence

Image from source, Politico

My prediction, after the passage of health care reform, was that this massive over-the-top rage from conservatives and tea baggers would fizzle out. I still think it will, eventually. But not right away. They've had their paranoid, delusional anger stoked by FOX "News" for a steady year. Big corporations have funded their "grass roots" gatherings, and given them a place to congregate where everyone else also hates the Marxist, communist, Muslim, statist, fascist, Maoist, Kenyan, socialist, black President Obama and all of his associates. Right-wing talk radio has spewed forth the afore-mentioned adjectives, along with many others at the speed of a machine gun. And politicians like John Boehner, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann have visibly and vocally egged them on.

Health care reform was painted as the most evil, anti-American, democracy-ending issue to ever roll down the pike. This thing was puffed up as a death-blow to our very nation. And it passed. Some recognize all the invective as merely political rhetoric, over-inflated hyperbole to get the electorate agitated enough to pay attention (and grab ratings, of course). But we aren't an overly bright nation. Or rather, the dumb tends to rise to the top. And the crazy. What do these now rabid people now do with all their rage? We're starting to find out. The question is, will this ultimately fizzle? Or will it just gather more steam?

[Excerpt]

The backlash: Reform turns personal

Reps. Louise Slaughter and Bart Stupak have received death threats.

A tea party participant published what he thought was Rep. Thomas Perriello’s home address and urged disgruntled voters to “drop by” for a “good face-to-face chat.”

Vandals broke windows at Slaughter’s office in New York and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’s office in Arizona. . .

Read more at: Politico

Just Askin': Why Is Climate Change a Partisan Issue?

The issue of climate change (or global warming) is--for some reason--a massively partisan issue. Most liberals and progressives will be firmly on the side of climate change science, and believe that something must be done to protect the environment. Many (most?) conservatives believe that climate change is a massive hoax, and that while the climate may be in flux, nothing proves that humans have anything to do with it.

Mmkay. I can see how a person might come to that conclusion, but why is it almost as contentious as abortion, god, guns and gays?

It is true that the earth has gone through warming and cooling periods in eras when man did not produce massive amounts of pollution. It is true that climate science can and has been incorrect in the past. But to conclude that 110+ years of industrial polluting, and automotive exhaust can't possibly affect the environment just seems incredibly naive and stupid to me.

If you've ever seen a model of the earth's atmosphere in relation to the size of the planet, you can see that it is just a thin shell of protection. It seems plausible, in fact likely that pumping metric tons of pollution into the sky must have some kind of effect. But the party of no says. . .well. . .no.

When they will concede that the climate is changing--just that man can't be responsible--and that cutting pollution is desirable, they always have a caveat. Namely, that any effort expended toward that goal should not adversely affect business. And here, I believe we have the core of the partisan nature of the debate.

I know that big business would continue dumping and spewing without care were there no regulations. And I'm aware that Republicans have in the past cut those kinds of regulations and continue to attempt to get rid of them. All politicians, but Republicans especially, are beholden to their corporate campaign funds. Their mouthpieces, like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are beholden to if not Republican at least what now passes for conservative ideals, and those ideals now include backing up corporate interests.

In my experience, many hardcore conservatives are fans of FOX "News" and conservative talk radio, and have a remarkable ability to argue--nearly verbatim--Sean Hannity's or Bill O'Reilly's side of any issue. They seldom can answer follow-up questions, but they have the main talking points down. So when Beck or one of the others rants and raves about the global warming "hoax," their fans are all loaded up with their belief system. No thought required. It just amazes me how easily people can take these opinions to heart, even if it goes against their own self interest. Even if it falls apart under close scrutiny.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, these pundits and talkers must have zero respect for their audience. If you constantly fed your audience a bullshit buffet, and they continued to line up with a plate and fork, could you have any respect for them? Just askin.'

Rachel Maddow: The Middle Has Moved

I've been saying for a long time that the idea of "the middle" as it pertains to politics, has moved dramatically to the right. People like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, Mark Levin, et. al, are extreme right-wingers. But they're treated these days as simply "the right." Or by hard-right wingers as "too centrist." Because of this, anyone to the left of these people are now labeled as "far left." But they're not. How is this affecting the Republican Party? It's turning them into a party of rabid rightists, that's what.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Limbaugh Says Bush Wasn't Partisan

BWAAAA-HAAAAA-HAAA-HAAAAA!!! I know that Rush Limbaugh distorts facts for a living. I know that he flat-out lies sometimes. But he usually at least sounds like he's making sense. But this one is such a whopper. . .such an idiotic, easily disprovable notion. . .

Does Rush think his listeners are idiots? Oh, wait, dumb question. Of course he does. He makes an outrageous fortune for opining about every single subject under the sun, though he is schooled in none. He comes up with arguments that absolutely every single problem in the known universe is the fault of Democrats, even if they are not involved. Of course he thinks they are idiots. But, are they ever going to catch on?

[Excerpt]

Limbaugh: Bush wasn’t partisan.



RUSH: Well, I think he’s a decent man. He’s a - he had a reverence for the office, that’s why he didn’t get partisan. He thought it was irreverent to turn the Oval Office, or the Office of the Presidency, into a partisan strategic battle place. […]

Yes, you know, domestic policy, he did some things that puzzled us - creating a new entitlement, the whole immigration thing, signing campaign finance reform. But he’s a good man. He’s not hated. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

Die-hard 25%-ers Still Believe in Bush

Photo from source, CNN

A very unusual statistic in American politics has become evident over the last 8 years. Apparently, approximately one quarter of the American populace will follow the Republican Party, no matter who is in charge of it, or how incompetent they are. We can't be sure if there is an equal amount of Democrats who would react the same way, but I suspect the actual number of liberal progressives who march in lockstep with their party is much less than 25%.

This is a bit troubling. Because, it assures a built-in "will vote GOP" group, despite "the facts on the ground." No matter how bad or how corrupt the GOP might be at any given time, they are guaranteed one quarter of the vote. No matter how good a Democrat is, they've already lost 1 out of 4 voters.

[Excerpt]

Poll: 75% glad Bush is done

new national poll suggests that three out of four Americans feel President Bush's departure from office is coming not a moment too soon.

Seventy-five percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Friday said they're glad Bush is going; 23 percent indicated they'll miss him. . .

Read more at: CNN

Confirmed: Monica Goodling Broke the Law

Hilarious photo from source, LA Times

Little by little, many of the things that liberals like me have suspected to be true about the Bush Administration are being proven. What was once tinfoil-hattery, and Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS), are turning out to be fact.

In the latest case, former Pat Robertson law school graduate, Elle Woods clone Monica Goodling has been proven to be a lawbreaker, in part of the politicization of the Justice Department. Think she'll go to jail? Nahhh. Who'd enforce it? The partisan Justice Department?

[Excerpt]

Justice Department audit says politics affected hirings

Top aides to former Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales employed a political and ideological litmus test to weed out candidates for career and other positions at the Justice Department, an internal department report concluded Monday. . .

Read more at: Los Angeles Times

Why is Obama Not Improving in the Polls? I Know!!!

Image from source, International Herald Tribune

The big question in politics this week is, "why is Barack Obama not improving in the polls?" Pointing to the low approval ratings of George W. Bush--often cited as one of the worst Presidents in US history--and other factors, the pundit class thinks this is a Democratic year. Big wins are predicted in the Senate and House. So why is Obama only a few percentage points ahead of John McCain?

Let me take a stab at it, because I believe I have the answer. Over the last sixteen years, voters have become increasingly polarized. There may have always been "die-hard Democrats" and "resolute Republicans," but there used to be a vast middle ground. Not anymore. These days, those two groups have swollen to encompass most of the electorate.

I don't fit in either group, but then I rarely do. Multiple choice questions always frustrate me, because my option is usually between a) and b), or c) with a little d). But I defected from the Republican party in 1992 after the incendiary Pat Buchanan speech at the convention. I could have been turned back along the way, but the tone of Buchanan's speech has only been magnified in the ensuing years. I'm a Democrat by default, because I find the current Republican party offensive in nearly every way.

And in those two paragraphs, you have your answer. You have people who count their political identity as a defining feature of their personality. They can't change their party any more than they can change their sexual orientation. Then, you have people like me who are so viscerally opposed to the other party, they cannot in good conscience vote for anything but their default party. Barack Obama is only up by a handful of percentage points because that is all that is left.

How'd I do?

[Excerpt]

Why is Obama not improving in the polls?

It is a question that has hovered over Senator Barack Obama even as he has passed milestone after milestone in his race for the White House: Why is he not doing better?

Read more at: International Herald Tribune

Bush Administration Illegally Hired Partisan Lawyers

Image from source, Huffington Post

Once again, liberals--often accused of overblown cases of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS)--are proven right. And once again, we can be sure that conservatives--often suffering from Bush Brown-nose Syndrome (Eww)--will say, "what of it?"

The one thing we can almost be 100% sure of is, they'll get away with it, and most of America either won't care, or won't even know about it. I tell you, if Barack Obama wins this election, we'll be right back to the nit-picky nonsense stuff, and all of the sudden, America will care. George Carlin was right: we're all f***ed.

[Excerpt]

CONFIRMED: BUSH JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ILLEGALLY HIRED LAWYERS WITH CONSERVATIVE CREDENTIALS

Ivy Leaguers and other top law students were rejected for plum Justice Department jobs two years ago because of their liberal leanings or objections to Bush administration politics, a government report concluded Tuesday.

In one case, a Harvard Law student was passed over after criticizing the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. In another, a Georgetown University student who had previously worked for a Democratic senator and congressman didn't make the cut. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

If White House is Charged, Courts May be Friendly

Photo from source, Raw Story

Former "Bush's Brain" Karl Rove was instrumental in dividing this country more rigidly than it had ever been divided before. You'd be hard pressed to find a Democrat that will vote Republican in the next Presidential election. In that regard, hopefully, Rove's plan backfired.

But the rabid partisanship that exists in Congress and in the courts really frosts me. I get loyalty. I get voting for things that your party is for. What I don't get is loyalty that extends to turning a blind eye to illegal or unethical behavior. In an ideal America, it would not matter if a judge was conservative or liberal. All that should matter is law, intent and procedure. I fervently hope that the courts surprise us and do the right thing.

[Excerpt]

If Congress files charges, Bush aides likely will face friendly court

Bush appointees gives GOP 60/40 advantage on federal appeals courts

When President Bush leaves the White House 383 days from now, historians will begin to officially sum up his eight years in office. Aside from his legacy as the commander in chief who plunged the US into an intractable Iraq war, Bush's other lasting impression will survive far beyond the end of his term -- the decidedly conservative slant he has placed on federal courts. . .

Read more at: Raw Story

Political Compass: Where Do You Fall?

This is a very interesting survey, asking questions that place you on a political continuum. I (not surprisingly) end up somewhere between a leftist and a libertarian. But, note! I am not "far left!" Maybe slightly higher than mid-left, but I didn't quite land all the way over!

Find out where you fall at:

PoliticalCompass.org