The New Repulsive Republicans: Featuring Cheney's Chamber of Horrors!

Republicans now have another descriptive adjective. In the last 8 months, they've grown: stupid, arrogant, stubborn, bloviating and even weird. Now the newest: repulsive.

Yeah, repulsive. As in bloodthirsty kind of repulsive. Slimy repulsive. Yucky. Worse than "Bill the Cat" repulsive. More and more, they're looking like malicious Gremlins or the creature in Alien breathing, repulsively, on Segourney Weaver. And there are different kinds of Repulsive Republicans. For instance, there's the "we're all just torturers in arms" repulsive: several days ago, conservative commentator Lou Dobbs of CNN ran an accusatory piece on Senator Chuck Shumer running two videos, one where Shumer opposes torture and another (2004) in which he seems to be pro-torture (see below). He then asks viewers a leading question ascertaining if America approves of torture.

Crooks and Liars:

...and asks whether they would "personally employ torture to save American lives and prevent an attack on this country?" And surprise, surprise...the overwhelming answer is...YES! Looks like all that fear mongering is paying off well for you.

This is the same Lou Dobbs, you will recall, who was so enchanted by Obama Waffles during the Values Voters Summit that he bought several boxes.

Overt racism aside, the RNC is now running an ad that targets Nancy Pelosi - literally. This is the "kill them all, God will take care of his kind"* kind of repulsive:

No doubt somebody at the RNC thought it would be a clever idea, since Nancy Pelosi is feuding with the CIA, to run an ad comparing Pelosi to a James Bond villainess up against the superspy -- as in Bond's many screen-credit sequences wherein he blasts away at various villains.

The RNC is hoping that one of Palin's Rally people will take a tip from it.

And there's the "Dick Cheney's Right" kind of repulsive that even now has some "Republicans" disgusted:

Think Progress:

(McCain on Cheney's "National Security" speech):

And then he got acerbic: Cheney, he says, “believes that waterboarding doesn’t fall under the Geneva Conventions and that it’s not a form of torture. But you know, it goes back to the Spanish Inquisition.”

Of course, no definition of repulsive would be definitive if it did not include "The Boss has spoken" kind of repulsive. This would be portrayed in Rush Limbaugh's off-hand ridiculing of Ted Kennedy's cancer and lifespan (hear it below to believe it).

And lastly, there's the "we're so sanctimonious" kind of repulsive embodied by Mucho Macho Rick Santorum:

SANTORUM: The other thing we have to do is we have to stand up and say, look, America — Conservatives believe in the stewardship of patrimony. In other words, there are things in America that are really good, that work, have worked for 200 years. And we have a guy named Barack Obama who’s trying to fundamentally rewrite everything, change our economy, change our social structure, change our economy to something new.

In other words, screw women - physically and figuratively. This coming from the man who has the weirdest looking family to ever lose a campaign.

I actually feel sorry for the few Republicans who are moderates and want to achieve solutions to the nation's problems by cooperation. The new, Repulsive Republicans are bringing out the worst in liberals. I Googled "Bloodthirsty Republicans" today and there was a link to a pdf file:

Republican Conservative Christian Blood Thirsty Murderring Christian Kills 8 Stupid Republicans in Red State Hillbilly Nebraska, Loser Bush Country...(Irony: sounds more like stupid Republicans than stupid Republicans. The grammar and spelling are just as bad.)

And from Flickr, I received this gem of Walt Whitman's:

There is no week nor day nor hour when tyranny may not enter upon this country - if the people lose their confidence in themselves - and lose their roughness and spirit of defiance.- Walt Whitman

David Giambusso put it well when interpreting the best Democratic strategy:

From The General Pattern:

... Paint all Republicans with the same brush as Limbaugh–the Rush brush–and by so doing, show the American people that the GOP are a bunch of yammering gasbags who would prefer to see America go under if it means paying less taxes.

It is a bold strategy and one that is indicative of the renewed potency of Democratic politics. Many chess gambits involve forcing an opponent’s piece to the front of the field so you can pick him off. Between Emmanuel, David Axelrod and James Carville it would seem probable that they have a big pile of shit to drop on Limbaugh at just the right moment.

Stupid. Arrogant. Stubborn. Bloviating. Weird. Repulsive. The Republican Party is running out of descriptive adjectives.

*Before the Inquisition was even a gleem in Torquemada's eye, a papal legate (representative) was asked by a knight laying siege to a town with both Christians and heretics how he could tell them apart. The response went down in history as one of the most cavalier in human genocide.

Cheney Spoke, but Obama's Audience Listened

Just who was Dick Cheney delivering his speech to?

People were watching the TV screen intently. The saw a man telling the nation his intentions on national security. He did it with aplomb, confidence and determination. The TV audience was parsing every word, every syllable. It was as if they were calculating the words, giving them numerical ratings and hoping that the tally was not too high. But that was to be expected with this audience. They were, after all, the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, a right-wing think tank. What wasn't to be expected was that they were calculating the words of President Barack Obama before listening (one hopes as attentively) to the man they actually paid to hear and see: former Vice-President Dick Cheney.

Even though they were pre-disposed to hear Cheney (one supposes, since he seldom gives orations to the public and he has, in these last weeks been as ubiquitous on the airwaves to the American public as ketchup is to Sean Hannity's hamburger), there was no doubt that they wanted to hear Obama's speech in order to bolster the upcoming words of Cheney.

Neither men disappointed them: Obama surprised and Cheney stayed the course.

From Washington Post, Scott Wilson:

Speaking moments after Obama finished, Cheney delivered the most pointed rejoinder of his weeks-long media campaign in defense of the Bush administration's national security record, including its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and its adoption of harsh interrogation tactics and detention policies that have been widely criticized.

He said the "great dividing line in our current debate over national security" is whether that "comprehensive strategy has worked and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever, or whether you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event, coordinated, devastating, but also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort."

From the clips on the regular broadcast news channels, Cheney was unusually jovial when he made a speech that restated his dire warnings of being attacked while under the watch of President Obama. So why was he smiling so much? Who knows. Maybe he was glad to feel the freedom of saying what he really wanted to say because...no one was listening. The world had heard versions of his views ad nauseum in the last weeks. If anyone was listening, they were trying to compare the astute Obama to the sly and snide Dick Cheney.

From The Swamp (Chicago Tribune) Mark Silva:

Most Americans surveyed -- 55 percent -- hold an unfavorable view of the former vice president, with only 37 percent viewing him kindly, a CNN Opinion Research Corp. poll finds. Which is to say he's only slightly less unpopular than he was last summer.

Cheney:

The responsibilities we carried belong to others now. And though I’m not here to speak for George W. Bush, I am certain that no one wishes the current administration more success in defending the country than we do.

HUH? WTF?! He didn't say that! "Good wishes" to Obama after he's gone on record as saying that Rush Limbaugh would be better for the Republican Party than Colin Powell? By extension, Cheney wants Obama "to fail." Must be the record for the most disingenuous comment of the decade.

Our government prevented attacks and saved lives through the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which let us intercept calls and track contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and persons inside the United States. The program was top secret, and for good reason, until the editors of the New York Times got it and put it on the front page. After 9/11, the Times had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Now here was that same newspaper publishing secrets in a way that could only help al-Qaeda. It impressed the Pulitzer committee, but it damn sure didn’t serve the interests of our country, or the safety of our people.

Trying to kill two birds with one stone: Obama and the New York Times. Granted, they're both enemies of Cheney's Radical Right, but isn't it a bit idiotic to take on both at the same time?

Releasing the interrogation memos was flatly contrary to the national security interest of the United States. The harm done only begins with top secret information now in the hands of the terrorists, who have just received a lengthy insert for their training manual. Across the world, governments that have helped us capture terrorists will fear that sensitive joint operations will be compromised.

Ah, which governments across the world? Cheney's trademark sneer alone has cost us dozens of alliances. "Sensitive joint operations"? That can be interpreted several ways. Iran-Contra was also a "sensitive joint operation."

After his speech, I wonder if they gave Cheney a standing ovation?

I wonder if they noticed that he had stopped speaking at all.

No Wall Between Church and State: Ireland and The Largest Child Abuse Scandal in History

Silence is golden? Sometimes it's just pernicious. Catherine Devene, Unseen Scotland, 10 May, 2009

By the time you read this, it may be 20 hours old (very old in blogger time), but if you've ever read any of my posts on the Magdalene Laundry and Duplessis Orphan scandals, you'll know that I'm fated to write this post.

The (arguably) largest child abuse scandal in history has resurfaced. It came to light about 9 years ago and only the local Irish media carried it. Now, thanks to the rise of information on the internet, it has become headline news: the kind of news that goes beyond scandal, goes beyond belief and goes beyond perspective.

Thousands beaten, raped in Irish reform schools

Shawn Pogatchnik, Associated Press Writer – 6 hrs 11 mins ago

DUBLIN – A fiercely debated, long-delayed investigation into Ireland's Roman Catholic-run institutions says priests and nuns terrorized thousands of boys and girls in workhouse-style schools for decades — and government inspectors failed to stop the chronic beatings, rapes and humiliation.

Nine years in the making, Wednesday's report sides almost completely with the horrific reports of abuse from former students sent to more than 250 church-run, mostly residential institutions. But victims' leaders said it didn't go far enough — particularly because none of their abusers were identified by name.

The [2,600-page] report concluded that church officials always shielded their orders' pedophiles from arrest to protect their own reputations and, according to documents uncovered in the Vatican, knew that many pedophiles were serial attackers..

Thirty thousand children were abused. 30,000. Ten times three thousand. Three times ten thousand.

These institutions were "industrial schools" "reformatories" and "orphanages"; in other words, the children were considered outcasts and, therefore, expendable. It is a stupendous irony that the chief orders committing these crimes were named "Sisters of Mercy" and "Christian Brothers."

For further reading/viewing click HERE...HERE...and HERE. (There is also an old post of mine about the Iraqi Orphan Scandal featuring the Duplessis scandal)

While the public in general will be horrified by the extent of the abuse, let's look at some other key points:

• During the years of abuse, there was literally no "wall of separation between church and state." Government officials turned a deaf ear to complaints and were blind during inspection. Why? Simply because BOTH the inspectors and the institutions were Catholic.
• As with sex abuse cases in America, the Roman Catholic Church hid accounts of such cases by transferring known repeat offenders to other schools.
• Also in hiding: reputations. The title of "Sr.", "Rev." or "Bro." insured that there could be no question about the morals or ethics of a priest, nun. or brother. They were, of course, beyond reproach. To question otherwise was (and is still) "sacrilegious."
• These were government subsidized schools over which the public (taxpayer) had little or no control. In today's terms, think extremely autonomous "faith-based" charities. Legislation of regulations for such schools was considered "insulting" to the Catholic faith.

When the Iraqi orphan scandal broke, people were horrified. Mentally disabled children were starved and abused, after all. The media was notified immediately. But was it considered a singularly Muslim offense? Did religion have any role in the abuse? No.

Abuse like this can be taken further (although now of the media has asked questions): the Magdalene Laundries scandal in England and Ireland were uncovered due to the discovery of GRAVESITES. There are unmarked gravesites as well of the Duplessis Orphanages. Of the 200 insitutions included in the report, have there been any such gravesites reported?

In conclusion: even when religion and government are intertwined to the point of being indistinguishable, one of them must rule over the other. In Ireland, the Roman Catholic Church ruled.

Now think of the kind of rule our own "Social Conservatives" want.

Just a thought.

This Is One Story Sean Hannity Won't Report!

While editing the post above, I realized that there were certain "media" that might not want to put it on "page one" ...or page two... or page twenty, or any page at all, for that matter. CBS did an admirable job of covering the story. As did MSNBC. As did CNN. As did ABC.

Fox News regurgitated the AP article. To my knowledge, there was no video reporting. No reporter or journalist or "commentator" was assigned to the story.

It's Fox. It figures.

Hannity Gets Slaughtered by...Jesse Ventura

Jesse: Why Not Waterboard Sean?

Hannity: "I don't know why I like you, but I do."

Maybe Sean Hannity has been looking at provocative old photos of Jesse "The Body" Ventura. The following clip shows how reasonable Ventura is and how Hannity almost seems to be living in a fantasy world.

Notice one important omission: the subject of waterboarding NEVER CAME UP. Was it because Hannity made a promise to be warterboarded, but hasn't found the courage to set a date and time.

BTW: have you ever noticed that whenever Fox commentators are cornered on their own question, they collapse like a house of cards? It's true that Ventura is not light and witty; he's more a prize fighter in the ring. But his attitude frustrates people like Hannity.

Do Fox commentators ever bother to watch their own shows and ANALYZE THEM? Do they adore themselves so much that they think their idiocies will be accepted offhand?

Just a thought.

Holy Waterboarding! God Approves Of Torture!

As well as any policy of Donald Rumsfeld.

From Sodahead:

Worldwide Intelligence update Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld used Biblical quotes and pictures to U.S. soldiers and former President Bush to justify was in Iraq. His administration peers are suddenly speaking out.?Seen on MSNBC Channel 46 live, Countdown With Keith Olberman May 18th, 2009. Quoted from document known as The Worldwide Intelligence Update, "On the morning of Thursday, April, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld's Pantagon prepared a top-secret briefing for George W. Bush. This document, known as the Worldwide Intelligence Update. If circulated, it was a daily digest of critical military intelligence so classified that it circulated among only a handful of Pentagon leaders and the President. Runsfeld himself often delivered it by hand, to the White House.

The briefing's cover sheet generally featured triumphant, Color images from the previous days' war efforts: on this particular morning, the picture was of the statue of Saddam Hussien being pulled down in Fridos Square, a grateful Iraqi child kissing an American soldier, and jubilant crowds thronging the streets of newly liberated Bagdad. And above these images, and just below the headline"Secretary of Defense" was a quote that may have some some eyebrows. It came from the Bible, from the Book of Psalms:

"Behold the eye of the Lord in on those who fear him...to deliver their soul from death."

Oh, what a lovely tradition Mr. Rumsfeld had. Now just think of all the passages he could have inserted to suit his feelings at the time:

the men who had falsely accused Daniel were brought in and thrown into the lions' den, along with their wives and children. And before they reached the floor of the den, the lions overpowered them and crushed all their bones.

Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain.
Titus 1:6-8 (in Context) Titus 1 (Whole Chapter)

Declare them guilty, O God! Let their intrigues be their downfall. Banish them for their many sins, for they have rebelled against you.
Psalm 5:9-11 (in Context) Psalm 5 (Whole Chapter)

I will be an enemy to your enemies and will oppose those who oppose you.
Exodus 23:21-23 (in Context) Exodus 23 (Whole Chapter)

for your love is ever before me, and I walk continually in your truth.
Psalm 26:2-4 (in Context) Psalm 26 (Whole Chapter)

(Ooops! That last one was to be saved for the repeal of DADT!)

Seriously: WTF?!? Did Rumsfeld think that Bush needed encouragement to fight Iraq?

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

For Every Other Gay Marriage, There's Mastercard!

According to Michael Steele, gay marriage will be detrimental to small business owners (??).

While he wants everyone to know that the Republican Party is the New/Old party concnetrating on fiscal responsibility (read: cut government services), Steele forgets that owning an old, termite-infested, hurricane-battered house will cost dearly in repairs. For instance:

Cost of telling Republicans they have to retool their image to include everybody: $450,000 in speaking engagements.

Cost of flip-flopping from ambiguity about gay marriage ("not going to beat people upside the head about it") then objecting to additional spouses on health care rolls: 10 million votes of fiscally conservative, socially liberal youth because of confusion.

Cost of saying something that's silly: priceless - AND a "WTF" feature on Keith Olberman's "Countdown.

Watch it:

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