Just George W. Bush, Acting Goofy, at a FUNERAL

Michelle Obama trying gamely to play along with the goofball.

Politics is weird, and getting weirder. There are double-standards, and then there are stark, bold-letter, hypocritical double-standards, you know? I mean, think about what it must feel like to be these presidential contenders, listed with the thing that pretty much ended their chance to be president:

- Michael Dukakis: filmed driving a tank, wearing a helmet
- John Kerry: wore a hazmat suit at a science facility, went windsurfing that one time
- Howard Dean: screamed enthusiastically at a rally, magnified by a unidirectional microphone
- Al Gore: sighed audibly at a debate

Why is one of these things not like the other?

Yup. Almost universally, people would agree, those men's hopes of election were stopped by those little events. Matched up against the lengthy list of foibles, flubs, and downright outrageous things said and done by Donald Trump, they don't amount to anything. But that was it for them. For all the whining about there being a double-standard for Bill and Hillary Clinton, Trump seems to have a permanent "SKIP" UNO card when it comes to disqualifying events. Nothing shakes his base, and virtually nothing goes beyond a couple days in the news cycle, before they reset to default.

But here is another double-standard, and it goes to the double-standard for Clintons that is much more rarely addressed. For all of the certainty so many claim to have that the media and the system are "in the tank" for the Clintons, the fact is, they're held to a tougher standard than most. Making it more remarkable when they do manage to bounce back, or shrug off the brutal treatment they get. Case in point.

Bill Clinton was at a funeral for Sec. Ron Brown, and was seen on camera smiling and walking with someone. When he noticed a camera trained in his direction, he did what your grandmother would scold you to do: he wiped that smile off his face right quick, and tried to look somber. This was and remains fodder for right-wingers to this day, as an example of Clinton disingenuousness. When in fact, it's something probably anyone might do. Contrast that with yesterday's memorial for the police officers slain in Dallas this past week.



Presidents Bush and Barack Obama both gave stirring speeches. Dubya's was much shorter, obviously prepared for him, and rehearsed. And he couldn't help but keep his colloquial Texas twang. But it was fine. But check him out later, while holding hands with his much more mannered wife, and our current first lady (who, poor lady, is fairly trapped there with this goon) dancing around and acting goofy. At a funeral.

Think this will be brought up endlessly--or ever--by conservatives? Or even make more than a light ripple on the news before going down the memory hole?

Scandal: Does it Matter That Bush Targeted Enemies with Gov't Agencies?

In politics, there are double-standards. For instance, if something pertaining to treatment of the president is perceived as racist, simply calling it that can be labelled "playing the race card," which is treated as an equal and opposite infraction. Similarly, if Party A is upset with something Party B has done--even though Party A has done precisely the same thing in the past that they're accusing B of--just pointing that out is seen as somehow out of bounds.

But this is my blog, and I really don't care about those dumb rules. The plain fact of the matter is, the various "scandal-ettes" as I'm calling them, the IRS/Tea Party one--the Justice Department/AP one and the Benghazi one--all have analogs to things in the Bush administration. And let's make this clear: all three of these controversies (umbrella-gate doesn't count) are merely alleged. There has been, as far as I know, no proven misbehavior by the President himself, or the executive branch on any of them.

Someone in this photo likely causes a visceral reaction in you, right?
Image from Alternet.

The same cannot be said of Bush and Co. Their politicization of every department of the government was legendary. They couldn't govern or conduct foreign policy for beans, but they played politics hardball well. Not good mind you, well. So, I think it's worth pointing out that even if each of these brouhahas, even if the go all the way to the top, has a precedent in the previous administration. And it's also worth pointing out that "impeachment was off the table." I always knew that Nancy Pelosi's diplomacy in that area was a bad idea that would never be repaid.

[Excerpt]

Bush Used the IRS, FBI, CIA and Secret Service to Go After Opponents -- Where Was the Fox and GOP Outrage?

As your kindergarten teacher probably told you, two wrongs do not make a right. But the discrepancy in reactions to wrongs does, indeed, show how Washington so often serves the interests of the political right. . .

Read more at: AlterNet

Just a Thought: Is it EVER Okay to Bring Up Nazis or Allege Racism?

From time to time, a thought enters my head, and I can't shake it until I write it down. Fortunately, I have a blog, where "writing it down" is pretty much the job description.  So, I'm introducing "Just a Thought," a banner beneath which I will toss out these random brain droppings.  I'll not promise coherence. 


Godwin's Law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." (Source: Wikipedia)

Kind of a bad idea. . .

It is a good rule of thumb to not use Nazis, Nazi Germany or Adolph Hitler as analogies in any situation.  In general, nobody is as bad as Nazis, and nothing compares to the evil committed by Hitler.  But here's the thing I got to thinking about.  One of the most commonly quoted phrases arising out of the aftermath of Nazi Germany is, "Never forget." This would mean--I assume--that we are not to forget the lessons learned from that period of time.  And that we should heed any sign of a repeat of those events.

But how do you heed supposed warnings, if any comment referencing similarities to Nazi Germany are immediately deemed to be a shut down of serious discussion?  No analogy is ever perfect, but there are sometimes similarities between events, even extreme events.  This doesn't mean that I support anti-Obama tea baggers who paint--with no foundation--President Obama as a Nazi.  With any analogy, there must be some sort of underlying similarity, and none exists there.  It seems to have come in response to Bush and Cheney being similarly portrayed. But at least there was some foundation to build upon there, and many more years in office before those sorts of analogies started to be drawn.  Anyway. . .

On a tangent, this subject for some reason directs my brain to a different one. That of recognizing and commenting on veiled racism.  If for example one were to posit that there are racist elements in the Tea Party movement, one would be immediately slammed for playing "the race card."  Now, put aside for a moment whether you believe or disbelieve my premise.  Just notice how alleging racism is now equivalent to being racist.  If you "play the race card," you've done pretty much the same thing--in today's politics--as making a Nazi analogy. You've effectively ended all serious discussion.  Not that pictures like the above merit serious discussions of either subject. I think we can all agree that it is just a bad idea.

Lest We Forget: Bush and the Saudi King, K-I-S-S-I-N-G

On the conservative internet outpost FreeRepublic.com, you find all manner of ridiculous things. You'll find overt racism, homophobia, misogyny, xenophobia, hypocrisy, dumbassery, douchebaggery, you name it.  You'll also find countless examples of attempted conservative "humor." It's in quotes, because it misses the mark far more frequently than it hits it. The strange thing is, they'll repeat the same jokes and visual puns endlessly, and squeal with laughter as if it was the very first time.

A typical Free Republic "Obama is Gay"
image, from FreeRepublic.com

One of their favorite targets is President Barack Obama, with the gay running a very close second.  And if they can combine the two?  Well, then they've hit conservative humor nirvana. They especially like finding freeze-frames of the President in poses that they deem gay. Because, don't you know, a bent wrist or knee is the hallmark of all flaming queens.  See what I mean about retread humor? 

Now, imagine you're the President. You've got cameras on you all day long, every day. Don't you think you could freeze-frame anybody in just about any pose if you really tried? Sure you could. Try randomly freeze-framing Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity sometime. The results can be hilarious.  Okay, moderately amusing, but hilarious on the FReeper scale.  And we liberals do it too. How many unflattering shots of Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle and George W. Bush himself have we used on our dirty little liberal blogs?  Guilty!

Image from Wonkette

But they've never gotten a picture of President Obama holding hands with another dude, as far as I know. Or kissing a man on the lips.  I'll be happy to recant if I'm wrong. But this photo set pees all over their silly "Obama's a fairy" pictures.

If you want to really blow your mind, take a trip over to FreeRepublic's repository of Obama "humor." You'll see I'm not just pulling your leg, though the gay stuff isn't as prevalent as the WTF stuff on this particular page.

Image from Wonkette

One More Time: Presidents Sometimes Put Feet on Their Desks

Image from MediaMatters

I've been noticing that an old "Presidents with Feet on Their Desks" keeps drawing hits, especially over the last couple of days. This has popped up a couple of times before, and I don't know what has spurred it this time.  Conservatives--especially those of the FReeper variety--like to say that President Obama putting his feet on the "historic" desk he sits at proves that he has no class. Or something.  Conveniently they overlook this photo of President George W. Bush doing the exact same thing. Can you guys please put this ridiculous controversy away, and move on to the next faux outrage?

Sarah Palin's Pastor Problem

Photo from LiveJournal

There are many things I'm sick and tired of in politics. One of them used to be candidates that promised "change." It is an often used phrase, but this time, I'm hoping that my candidate (guess who) delivers.

Another thing I'm tired of is IOKIYAR. To the uninitiated, that means it's OK if you're a Republican. Now, don't get me wrong, there are some parallels on the other side of the aisle, and I'm sure right-wingers probably have their own IOKIYAD laments. But that is not what seems to be as strongly in play right now.

Here are just a few examples:

- Barack Obama, not well known, gave a good speech, celebrity. Bad.

- Sarah Palin, not well known, gave a good speech, celebrity. Good.

- John Edwards cheated on his wife, and that somehow reflects badly on Barack Obama.

- John McCain cheated on his wife, and we're not supposed to comment on it.

- John McCain's history as a POW 40 years ago tells us about his character.

- John McCain's behavior 30 years ago (adultery), and 20 years ago (Keating 5) are irrelevant.

- Barack Obama attended a radical (black) Christian church for 20 years. Bad.

- Sarah Palin attended a radical (crazy) Christian church for 20 years. So?

[Excerpt]

And If She Weighs The Same As A Duck...

. . .The pastor whose prayer Sarah Palin says helped her to become governor of Alaska founded his ministry with a witchhunt against a Kenyan woman who he accused of causing car accidents through demonic spells. . .

Read more at: DailyKos