Sunday, November 12, 2006

Election 2006: Ladies Stand Up


I haven't blogged in a few days because quite honestly, I've been at a loss for words over last week's elections. Am I even cut out for this game if I'm almost a week behind in my commentary? Yikes.

Anyway, in addition to the Democrats' much-deserved victory, I think it's interesting that this election is really about the women of America. Hillary is definitely running for office in '08, Nancy Pelosi is emerging as a refreshing voice of reason and authority as the next Speaker of the House, and of course, haters like Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter are resorting to the kind of girlish, bitchy behavior they so revile by coming up with lies and cheap metaphors to bemoan the direction America has now taken.
We'll get to that in a second.

First, y'all need to learn yourselves on who Nancy Pelosi is because I think she's just amazing. I especially love that she says her commitment is to the House first and to the Democrats second. Let's give a shout-out to the American Way and not parties, people.
Quick stats on the first Nancy to really make a difference in Washington (courtesy of: Wikipedia, Nancy Pelosi's Home Page):
-- Pelosi is the first woman to lead a major political party in either house of Congress, and would be the first woman to serve as Speaker.
-- Nancy is the youngest of six children born to Thomas Alessandro, Jr., former mayor of Baltimore.
-- She is Roman Catholic, pro-choice, and a supporter of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which makes it a federal crime to commit an act of violence against a pregnant woman that terminates her pregnancy. (This is where I add that I think abortion is a necessary evil for the protection of our civil liberties. I think it's sad, but unfortunately a needed resource for many women who would otherwise be trapped in a terrible situation with an unwanted birth.)
-- She is pro gun control and a supporter of immigrants' rights; in fact, she has voted againt denying public education services to illegal immigrants.
This is the kind of leadership we need in Washington. Read below for comments from Conservative luminaries who continue to reveal the hateful, backwards thinking of the Republican agenda:
Says one dried up Ann Coulter:
Democrats support surrender in Iraq, higher taxes and the impeachment of President Bush. They just won an election by pretending to be against all three.
Um, actually, Ann. You're wrong on all three fronts.
1. Wanting to end the war is not at all surrendering. Besides, what's there to surrender to? Bush told us the war was over in 90 days so what's all this hulaballo about leaving? Do the Republicans think more young men and women need to come back in body bags? Is Iraq REALLY the hub of terrorism in the Middle East? No, it's not. This is an endless battle unless we agree to negotiate with the terrorists and figure out what they want.

As a nation we're not opposed to dealing with terrorists: hello, we're bff now with Kadafi and Arafat exchanged air-kisses with Hillary Clinton.
2. Higher taxes for the betterment of society, Ann. Unlike you, not every American can pay for every which private service you enjoy. Tax dollars that are being WASTED on this dirty war and on stuffing the wallets of DC insiders who are making a killing on the killing of young Americans. You don't want higher taxes? Bring our troops back and let's invest in a new generation of well-educated, healthy Americans who don't have to worry about health care and can instead worry about supporting their families and themselves.
3. Impeach Bush? Yes, the same way the Republicans impeached Clinton because he got a blowjob. How many deaths did that result in?
***
Still, I gotta give it to Ann, for all her lying and hating, she comes up with some good stuff. Like:
Jon Tester, Bob Casey Jr., Heath Shuler, possibly Jim Webb — I've never seen so much raw testosterone in my life. The smell of sweaty jockstraps from the "new Democrats" is overwhelming.
***

Whoa. I don't know what sweaty jockstraps smell like but Ann has clearly made the rounds in America's locker rooms. She should swap stories with my BFF, Michael Lucas.
***
Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin is huffin and puffin about a minimum wage hike. Um, bitch, what the hell do you care if a McDonald's employee can feed his/her family? That's right, you don't. Don't worry, though, there are enough people in power now that are watching out for hardworking Americans so all the "values" our soldiers are dying for are actually enjoyed by our people.
Oh, and to say that Rumsfeld served his country honorably is just disgusting. The engineer of the Iraq war deserves Saddam's fate, but hey, Dems are anti-capital punishment so the old coot is spared.
***
And on the Hillary. Girl, do you, but PLEASE don't run in '08. Am I a jerk for thinking that? I just don't think all of America likes her like I do, we need someone less divisive in Oval Office. An ideal female candidate would have to be a cross between Rachel Ray and Barbra Streisand. But that's just my opinion.

18 comments:

Warren said...

Raising the minimum wage is a popular issue, but that doesn't make it sensible. If we make policy by what seems right to the majority, we can see what that does for gay rights (and I support gay marriage).

You can read more about what's wrong with liberals and minimum wage on my blog.

GCL said...

Thanks for the comments, Warren. Read your blog; very interesting. More arguments to come...

Causal said...

Well, it only takes a moment to help convince Nancy Pelosi to Impeach Bush/Cheney..

Pelosi most likely said impeachment was "off the table" to remove any appearance of conflict-of-interest that would arise if she were thrust into the presidency as a result of the coming impeachment.

What we need to do is to pressure Pelosi not to interfere with impeachment maneuverings within her party. Sending her Do-It-Yourself impeachments legitimizes her when she joins the impeachment movement in the future.

Sacks and sacks of mail are about to arrive in Nancy Pelosi's office initiating impeachment via the House of Representative's own rules. This legal document is as binding as if a State or if the House itself passed the impeachment resolution (H.R. 635). There's a little known and rarely used clause of the "Jefferson Manual" in the rules for the House of Representatives which sets forth the various ways in which a president can be impeached. Only the House Judiciary Committee puts together the Articles of Impeachment, but before that happens, someone has to initiate the process.That's where we come in. In addition to a House Resolution (635), or the State-by-State method, one of the ways to get impeachment going is for individual citizens like you and me to submit a memorial. ImpeachforPeace.org has created a new memorial based on one which was successful in impeaching a federal official in the past. You can find it on their website as a PDF.

You can initiate the impeachment process and simultaneously help to convince Pelosi to follow through with the process. Do-It-Yourself by downloading the memorial, filling in the relevant information (your name, state, etc.), and sending it in. Be a part of history.

http://ImpeachForPeace.org/ImpeachNow.html

GRT said...

I don't know how this will play out, but if a person would go to http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/eRiposte_demovsrep.pdf , that person would find this "...there is no proof that Republican presidents are better for the U.S. economy than Democratic presidents. Indeed, the data indicates the opposite is likely true." This is a 7 page document with supporting data. It's interesting reading.

Caveat: the data was published in October of 2004, so it's a history of the previous 50 or so years.

Part of the Republican spin is that Democratic policies are bad for the country. There is data to refute this spin.

The minimum wage might need some tweaking in its application, but it is demonstrably not harmful to the economy.

Go figure.

Berdo said...

GCL -

The Democrats just kicked complete ass in the elections. Good. It's supposed to be a two-party system. And I am generally a moderate and like the idea of a shift in power - which was sorely needed.

There is a LOT not to like about Nancy Pelosi. Some of it is detailed in a book that provides an outline of how she "supports" unions - but for other people - not for herself. Her businesses (she's a very rich woman) run in complete contradiction to the policies she supports - including union workers. I implore you to read "Do as I say, Not as I do" by Peter Schweitzer. I think you might find it an interesting read. I have a serious problem with overprivleged, obscenely rich liberal professing high minded ideals and moral authority and then acting like a mafia don in their own personal businesses. Good for the goose, apparently, but not for the gander. GCL - I hope this upsets you as much as it upsets me.

Minimum wage. I guess it doesn't affect someone like Michelle Malkin if a worker at McDonalds gets another two dollars an hour. But I would guess that it DOES affect all of us if a manufacturing plant has thousands of dollars more per hour on its payroll. That leads to more OUTSOURCING and is extremely damaging to the economy. The debate has strong points on both sides - and calling anyone you disagree with a liar isn't going to change that.

NOTE: Ann Coulter IS a liar and she's disgusting and I have no problem saying that. But it would be nice if you quit with the double standard and began calling the liberals out on the same crap. Only time will tell, I guess, if you are committed to the principle or simply to attacking the right.

ThatGayConservative said...

Wanting to end the war is not at all surrendering. Besides, what's there to surrender to? Bush told us the war was over in 90 days so what's all this hulaballo about leaving?

Wanting to leave before the job is done is surrendering. Bush NEVER told us the war was over in 90 days. Also, we would be surrendering to those who wish to establish their Calipate in the ME.

Do the Republicans think more young men and women need to come back in body bags?

Is Iraq REALLY the hub of terrorism in the Middle East? No, it's not.

The liberals as well as al-Qaeda in Iraq says it is. Why do you say different?

This is an endless battle unless we agree to negotiate with the terrorists and figure out what they want.

Tell me, how do you negotiate with someone whose main goal is to kill you?

You don't want higher taxes? Bring our troops back and let's invest in a new generation of well-educated, healthy Americans who don't have to worry about health care and can instead worry about supporting their families and themselves.

Are you REALLY going to give a shit about all that when you and your family are dead?

3. Impeach Bush? Yes, the same way the Republicans impeached Clinton because he got a blowjob.

So it's just a vendetta and not about principle. No surprise there.

Do you really want to go there?

Um, bitch, what the hell do you care if a McDonald's employee can feed his/her family

First of all, minimum wage is NOT meant to be a living wage. It's supposed to be for teenagers who don't have any job experience. How many of them, do you suppose, have families to feed? Also consider that those earning minimum wage are only 2% of the workforce.

We know that $7.25 is not a living wage, so why not make it $10 or $20 or $50? If liberals are so damn benevolent, why won't they go for that?

GayConservativeLiberal said...

No one is perfect. Just read the ongoing debate over last week's Haggard scandal. So, I'm sure Nancy has some skeletons in her closet too. Like Hillary and White Water. Anyway, on to TGC, I think the Middle East affair is in large part a conflict started by the US. Our unwavering support of Israel, our former ties to Bin Laden and Saddam, we're the big bully in the playground. It's time to stop that and just figure out a way for us to coexist on this planet. No ammount of soldiers in the world could safeguard us on 9-11, so if it happens again and I'm taken out, it's nobody's fault but our leadership's and their irresponsibility.

Berdo said...

GCL - if you're analysis begins with the supposition that to be an "unwavering" supporter of Israel makes us a big bully, rather than the "unwavering" campaign by virtually every arab country in the world to destroy the lone democracy in the Middle East, the I BEG of you to drop the liberal line and look at things objectively.

Berdo said...

And another thing - amazing, Nancy Pelosi has been exposed as a complete fraud and you wave your hand across it and says "everyone has skeletons in their closet." Do you treat Republicans with the same understanding? The double standard you apply, GCL is rich and transparent and absurd.

GCL said...

Berdo, ou serais-je sans toi? AKA Where would I be without you? You're absolutely right. I am unabashedly pro-Democrat. Hell, I'm still a big Kennedy fan and Ted Kennedy basically killed someone as a result of his drunk driving. My gripe with the Republicans is their penchant for all-or-nothing policy. Republicans dont encourage dialogue, they don't appreciate diversity, and they're certainly not out to help the poor. The Democrats, for all of their mistakes, though, still come across as human, intelligent and concerned with making life better for all Americans. Most Americans would agree.

ThatGayConservative said...

I think the Middle East affair is in large part a conflict started by the US. Our unwavering support of Israel,

You're right. We should've supported students of Nazi-ism like Arafat instead of those goddamn Jew bastards, right?

our former ties to Bin Laden and Saddam,

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm.....We never had "ties" to bin Laden and as far as Saddam goes, we attempted to correct that mistake. Nobody has EVER come forward with evidence that we had ties to bin Laden and even he HIMSELF said that we didn't. If liberals can't believe bin Laden, who can they believe in?

Further, it still amazes me that for years liberals supported getting rid of Hussein. They were worried about the imminent threat of his WMDs which caused them to pass the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which lord BJ signed. They backed war on Iraq right up until a Republican president actually did what they themselves demanded. Hell, even Howard Dean supported it just days before the invasion. Then somehow, even before we had boots on the ground, the libs were screaming "quagmire". They screamed "quagmire" when the military took an "operational pause" during the dust storm so that their supply train could catch up to their blitz. The liberals didn't even care that Hussein launched a Chinese Silkworm missile into that shopping mall in Kuwait (bet you don't remember that).
It seems liberals supported it right up until a Republican president actually had the balls to do something about it. There also seems to be some selective ignorance of Algore's plans to deal with Iraq prior to the election because it doesn't fit the liberal war on truth.

we're the big bully in the playground.

BULLSHIT! We're the ones everybody comes running to when their ass is getting smacked into the mud. We're the ones they come whining to for help with natural disasters. Are you ashamed because we're the only remaining super power? Do you think we should lose because it's only fair to the other guys on "the playground"? Fuck them sideways.

It's time to stop that and just figure out a way for us to coexist on this planet.

That's the spineless twat way. You still didn't answer my question as to how you negotiate with those whose sole desire is to see your sorry ass beheaded and bleeding your life into the dirt. They don't want to "coexist" with your or I on this planet. They want us fucking DEAD. They want YOU dead. And pussies who want to "coexist" will be the first to go.

No ammount of soldiers in the world could safeguard us on 9-11,

If only they were all liberals. The towers would still be there and all the people would still be alive because they just want to "coexist" with everybody.

so if it happens again and I'm taken out, it's nobody's fault but our leadership's and their irresponsibility.

How about the irrisponsibility of ignoring them for 8 years hoping like hell they'd go away? It's intersting to me that we can burn down a religious group in Waco and take a little Cuban boy at gun point, but we're too pussified to deal with Islamo-fascists who pose a REAL clear and present danger to us and our way of life.

ThatGayConservative said...

Further,

My gripe with the Republicans is their penchant for all-or-nothing policy.

God forbid anybody actually stand for something and stick to their guns. You're right. We need mealy-mouthed leaders who hem and haw their way through just to make sure nobody gets mad.

Republicans dont encourage dialogue,

BULLSHIT! Republicans do encourage dialogue, as long as it's intellectually honest. No, we don't tolerate the usual spiel of Bush=Hitler, Bush lied, people died.
At the same time, we see in the global warming debate just how liberals encourage dialogue. They don't unluess you agree completely with them. Not only that, but we're seeing how much they give a shit about "dialogue" with their pending power after this election. They're going about as if they're trying to get bipartisanism and a "new tone" when actually their idea of bipartisanism is really everybody agreeing with them.

For example: How many times have you seen libs with sand in their vaginas about sharing power or how we're supposed to have a two party system? Now look back over history of "democrat" control. Did they really give a flying damn about sharing power or a two party system? No. They had their power and it was absolute. So don't you DARE dish out this shit about "encouraging dialogue".

they don't appreciate diversity,

You mean like the lilly white cabinet of lord BJ or those who suckled on F.You Kerry's tits? Bush has had Colin Powell and Rice in upper positions. Meanwhile, what do the libs have? "Osama Obama" who's done what, exactly? If libs are such paragons of diversity, why did Al Sharpton get all pissy with them over it? Why did they throw Mfume, Jackson, Ford and many other candidates under the bus? Why did they throw Oreos at Michael Steele and steal his credit report? Why did the libs engage in a gay bashing campaign post Foley?
How many gays has Bush appointed to positions? Bush has said, on camera, that he supports civil unions. On that note, guess who was the first president to meet with gay leaders at the WH? George H.W. Bush. Guess which president's staff met gay leaders to the WH while wearing latex gloves? Lord BJ.

How about Hispanics? How many of them did BJ put into higher positions? Gonzales is AG. Martinez is going to be the next leader of the RNC. How many minorities has the DNC made chief? ZERO. BTW, Michael Steele was the one of the runners up for RNC.

and they're certainly not out to help the poor

You know that old adage that if you give a man to fish, he can feed himself for a day...teach a man to fish and he can feed himself for a lifetime? Republicans want to teach men to fish. Liberals want to take fish away from people who worked hard to catch them and give them away to people who don't do anything. Meanwhile, Republicans want to teach everybody to fish so that they can feed themselves. Look back over the colossal failure of the "war on poverty" and tell me that that's been a success. Libs whine about what we've spent on the WOT, how about the TRILLIONS we've spent on the war on poverty. How many people have died in that war? Where's the exit strategy there? 40 years later and what?

You can take your race baiting and class envy cards and shove them sideways as far as I'm concerned.

Berdo said...

GCL - congratulations. You just admitted on your own blog that you support a quasi-murderer simply because he's a Democrat. And then have the nerve to accuse Republicans of an all-or-nothing strategy?

I think partisanship is the rotting core of political discourse. When political affiliation rather than principled objectivity becomes the touchstone of forming an opinion we go nowhere as a society.

I could care less that you are pro-Democrat. For the most part, I consider myself the same. The problem, GCL, and I think you know it, is that you have put Democrat above truth. That's not a good place to be - especially for someone so intelligent and interesting to read.

Perhaps that is the reasons you find obsecene corruption from the left (Harry Reid, John Murtha, William Jefferson, etc, etc, etc) humanizing and then find it repugnant when it is from the right.

But why let the truth get in the way of your partisanship?

James said...

I thinks it's past the time to have a woman in the White House. There is way too much testosterone in the world right now. I'm thrilled with Pelosi and Hillary for Prez - I just hope she can pull it off and not make the same mistake Gore made by escluding Bill from campaigning. So what about Monica - he was a great leader.

GayConservativeLiberal said...

I'm really amazed by how this one topic has excited everyone.

The goal of this blog was to learn about how other Americans are processing the news as opposed to just ranting about Bush. The latter is just too easy.

Over the past few months, though, I've been confronted with inconsistencies in my beliefs. Sure, I'm all anti-war and anti-Bush, but I also said I can stomach Ted Kennedy. Did I even make light of the fact that he killed someone?

Thankfully, though, I've said that partisanship is going to be the death of this country. You see it in the hateful (and recently homoerotic) lunacies of Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin, and you see it in the likes of gay conservative liberals like me.

TGC, I appreciate your hard line assualts on me. They keep me honest. And you know that I am not an anti-semite but Israel, in my opinion, is more trouble than it's worth. Your examples of honest intellectual debate and the US being a super power can be easily countered with the argument that our country, like any big business, doesnt do anything without the expectation of profit in return. Dude, I work in PR. So as Bill O'Reilly says, don't spin me.

If we're so apt at handling natural disasters New Orleans would exist today. And if you want to teach men to fish, fund better schools, help clean up our neighborhoods and give people an effing rod so they can compete for the damn fish. Don't slash every last program that helps disadvantaged youth get ahead so you can fund a war.

ThatGayConservative said...

I wouldn't go so far as to call it an assault, but whatever.

If we're so apt at handling natural disasters New Orleans would exist today.

What?
I believe I was referring to the fact that the rest of the world counts on us for help after disasters such as the tsunami, earthquakes etc. Katrina was a failure first and foremost of personal responsibility. Also, there was and is an over reliance on beauracracy. It's interesting how people know what to expect from a beauracracy and then they're totally surprised when it fails them. But, and this is key, they'll put all their faith in it again the next time.

And if you want to teach men to fish, fund better schools,

There's ass loads of funding out there for schools. ASS LOADS! We have BILLIONS of dollars available. However, if you don't have decent people teaching instead of indoctrinating, if they do anything at all, you can't expect much from education. We should be demanding results from the schools instead of just throwing money at it and hoping like hell it gets better. You can polish a turd, but it's still going to be a turd.

help clean up our neighborhoods

Since when is it up to the federal government to clean up neighborhoods? Where does personal responsibility come in? BTW, I don't see many liberals cleaning up.

and give people an effing rod so they can compete for the damn fish.

Nobody gave me my rod. I worked for it and bought it myself. If you want it bad enough, you'll find a way. Who made it my job to make sure that you have one?

Don't slash every last program that helps disadvantaged youth get ahead so you can fund a war.

I think, if you're the slightest bit honest, you'd find that nothing gets "slashed". Further, who says the programs are being taken advantage of or that the program is living up to it's stated purpose?

There's plenty of opportunities out there and a lot don't have to rely on federal dollars for it.

Berdo said...

GCL -

I love ya -but if ever a "non-response" ever existed, it's the one you just gave all of us.

I don't fully understand it - but as I see it - you seem to be saying there are hateful partisans out there and then go on only to mention two of them on the right (I agree on Coulter, vehemently disagree on Malkin).

If anything you just proved my point. YOu may have said you disagree with partisanship at some point in your blog - but that does not absolve you of the accusation. Virtually everything you have written in recent weeks lends far more weight to my argument, including your most recently reply.

GRT said...

"Nobody gave me my rod. I worked for it and bought it myself."

Hey, I don't want to get in the middle of these kinds of exchanges, but that quote, from a comment above this needs a teeeensy little nudge.

How could it be possible for anyone who came to age after WWII to prove the claim he/she attained a "rod" without the assistance of a social program?

Federal and state programs which have some subsidizing element are simply too ubiquitous in society. One can't escape them, even if one doesn't want them to help.

If nothing else, the various governmental agencies and programs created an atmosphere in which one could, with hard work, achieve.

Congratulations for achieving your "rod," but realize that it came about, to some extent, with assistance from some governmental agency.

I'm grateful for the help I've received. I don't begrudge the assistance to other people.