Associated Press photo
Democratic U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana has filled for the mainstream “news” media the-sky-is-falling-for-the-Democrats vacuum that Repugnican Scott Brown left after his takeover of the solidly Democratic U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts became old news. Bayh is shown above getting his Warholian minutes when he announced yesterday that he won’t seek a third term in the U.S. Senate.
Evan Bayh is still in the news today.
The mainstream “news” media are so hungry for sensationalism that they’ll create sensationalism where it isn’t. The Scott Brown brouhaha has past, so now they’ve latched on to what even The Christian Science Monitor sensationistically has dubbed the “Bayh bombshell” (from which “Washington is still reeling”).
Oh, yeah, it’s shock and awe!
Some analysts have posited that Bayh became a U.S. senator only because he wanted a better shot at the White House, and that he doesn’t want to have to wait, languishing in a job in the Senate that he never really wanted, until 2016, which is probably the next shot at the White House that he’d get. And what if he didn’t get that?
What’s so “stunning” (another sensationalistic term that The Christian Science Monitor used to describe Bayh’s depature from the Senate, as did The Associated Press) about a politician’s apparent lust for personal political power, which he apparently cloaks as his alleged concern for the people? (If Bayh is so fucking concerned about what’s best for the people instead of his own political future, then why in the fuck did he vote, like a lemming, for the Vietraq War, when many senators, including my own Sen. Barbara Boxer, had the sense to vote against it?)
So Bayh goes out bawling, bitching and moaning about how he doesn’t like the bickering in the Senate.
What, I wonder, is Bayh like at a sports event? Is he dismayed that the two teams are — gasp! — competing with each other instead of cooperating with each other?
Don’t they say that politics is a contact sport?
Bayh is a liar — blaming the “partisanship” (like that’s a bad thing) of the Senate for his departure from it when really, just like Sarah Palin-Quayle just didn’t have any more personal use for the governorship of Alaska, he has no more personal use for the Senate — and/or he’s a pussy who doesn’t have the stomach for polarized debate, which, the last time I checked, has existed in Congress since its inception. Really — did he read the job description before he took the job?
And shame on The Christian Science Monitor for also jumping on the the-Democrats-are-losers-for-not-being-able-to-hold-on-to-60-filibuster-proof-Senate-seats bandwagon.
The Monitor goes on and on about how after the November 2010 elections the Democratic Party probably still will retain a majority of the Senate seats, but almost certainly won’t retain its current 59-seat majority.
But the Monitor doesn’t bother to mention that during George W. Bush’s eight years of unelected rule, the Repugnican Party never had more than 55 of the Senate seats in its hands at any one time.
Suddenly, if you don’t have filibuster-proof majority, which is hard to get and even harder to keep, you’re worthless, but the Repugnicans during the reign of the BushCheneyCorp were always at least five seats away.
Not to sound too much like the fuckarded Sarah Palin-Quayle and her ilk, but what is with the mainstream “news” media’s double fucking standard? Why the much higher standards for the Democratic Party?
Robert's Virtual Soapbox 