Daily Archives: January 4, 2009

‘Sore Loserman’ redux — only in reverse

The Minnepolis Star-Tribune has scanned thousands of the contested ...

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune is displaying scans of the contested ...

AFP photos

Al on top: Democrat Al Franken, photographed above in November, appears closer than ever to unseating asswipe Norm Coleman (shown under Franken above in a photo from February 2008),  the incumbent Repugnican for a U.S. Senate seat for Minnesota. 

Democrat Al Franken is on track to replace Repugnican Norm Coleman as a U.S. senator for Minnesota. Right now, with the state’s recount of the incredibly close Senate race completed, Franken is ahead of Coleman by a razor-thin margin of 225 votes.

Of course, when initial results of the vote had put asshole Coleman on top by only 215 votes, Coleman urged Franken to concede for the good of Minnesota and the country and everything that is Godly and good. But now that the recount, which was mandated by state law, has put Franken on top, will hypocrite Coleman take his own advice and concede for the good of the Universe? Of fucking course not: Team Coleman plans to drag the matter out in court, potentially for months. (Remember the Repugnican cries of “Sore Loserman” from 2000?)

Thankfully, Franken is one Democrat named Al who didn’t give up so fucking easily. Franken has hung in there, wanting every last fucking vote to be counted as fairly and accurately as possible.

Democrats can take a lesson from Franken on the anatomical necessity of a spine. A typical Democrat would have taken his or her Repugnican opponent’s surely well-intended advice to concede already.

I used to listen to Franken at least a few years ago on Air America Radio, and he always struck me as a bit too moderate and a bit too polite — my impression was that his co-host, a former National Public Radio show host (what was her name?), held him back, because on NPR they’re always “nice” and “polite” and “professional” — and when Franken announced his intention to run for the U.S. Senate against Coleman I was doubtful of Franken’s chances, but I am happy to hear that Franken is close to finally, officially unseating Coleman the asshole.

The late Paul Wellstone would be proud.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Still desperately seeking a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties

Israel’s slaughter of Palestinians, whose land the Israelis occupy, continues. The Associated Press reports that in Israel’s eight days of aggression against the Palestinians that most of the civilized world has condemned, more than 480 Palestinians have been slaughtered — to only four Israelis killed, fewer than one Israeli for every 100 Palestinians.

Yet the unelected, mass-murdering Bush regime still blames everything on Hamas and won’t renounce the Israelis’ continuing insanely lop-sided slaughter.

It seems fairly clear what Israel is doing now: knowing that the Bush regime is out the door soon, bloodthirsty Israeli wingnuts decided that they’d slaughter as many Palestinians as they could while they still had the full cover of the United States government.

It’s very doubtful that President-elect Barack Obama once in office will treat the Palestinians with even-handedness and fairness, but my guess is that he’ll be more sensitive to world opinion than has been the outgoing Bush regime, and that with Obama behind the wheel Israel won’t have quite the blank check that the Bush regime has given it.

Sexy brainiac Glenn Greenwald has been writing about how Democratic and Repugnican politicians are virtually indistinguishable in their blindly slavish support for Israel; he writes that “the suffocating, fully bipartisan orthodoxy [that] typically predominates in America when it comes to Israel — thou shalt not speak ill of Israel, thou shalt support all actions it takes — is in full force with this latest conflict.”

Greenwald notes that “Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose the Israeli offensive — by a 24-point margin,” yet “Democratic Party leaders — including Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi — are just as lockstep [as are the Repugnicans] in their blind, uncritical support for the [current] Israeli attack, in their absolute refusal to utter a word of criticism of, or even reservations about, Israeli actions.”

Greenwall asks:

Is there any other significant issue in American political life, besides Israel, where (a) citizens split almost evenly in their views, yet (b) the leaders of both parties adopt identical lockstep positions which leave half of the citizenry with no real voice?

More notably still, is there any other position, besides Israel, where (a) a party’s voters overwhelmingly embrace one position (Israel should not have attacked Gaza) but (b) that party’s leadership unanimously embraces the exact opposite position (Israel was absolutely right to attack Gaza and the U.S. must support Israel unequivocally)? Does that happen with any other issue?

Probably not, but, as I have noted before, most of the Democratic “leadership” opposes same-sex marriage* — even though, I surmise, the majority of Democratic voters support same-sex marriage.**

Polls taken in the last month indicate that as many as 44 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage and that 63 percent of Americans support some sort of legal recognition for same-sex couples, although not all of them are OK with calling it marriage. Only 30 percent are opposed to any sort of legal recognition for same-sex couples, and the rest are undecided.

A poll taken in the last month also indicates that 52 percent of Americans would oppose amending the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage in all 50 states (43 percent would favor doing so, with the rest undecided) and that 49 percent of Americans would vote against amending their own state’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage (45 percent would vote to write hatred into their state’s constitution, with the rest undecided).

The Obama administration has a chance to take some real leadership on the same-sex marriage issue. If the Prick Warren fiasco is any indicator, though, the Obama administration will be about as great on equal human and civil rights for non-heterosexuals as was the Clinton administration.

The Democrats sure love to get our non-heterosexuals’ money, but have a severe problem delivering much, if anything, in return.

*Barack Obama’s public stance is that each state should decide the issue of same-sex marriage for itself — although we don’t leave most civil-rights matters up to each state for very good reason. Obama’s stance is the coward’s way out, and the “states’ rights” argument is soundly rejected by those who fight for rights for racial minorities. 

**I have been unable to find recent polls on same-sex marriage broken down by the respondents’ political party affiliation, but it’s a good guess that most of those who say in polls that they oppose same-sex marriage are Repugnicans and that most who say in polls that they support it are Democrats.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized