May Quickies…

Hilary Twelve-Steps To The White House…

In today’s Globe Peter Canellos has a column the editors have headlined ‘Clinton hones tough-gal, beer-and-shot persona’. It’s about our gal Hil hanging out in bars and tossing down shots to show that she’s just one of the ordinary people.


Sure she is. And The Lion is a pussycat who will lay ten to one that when she gets home after a day of hanging out with the locals she feels dirty and has to take a bath in her two hundred fifty thousand dollar bathroom.

The theory behind the Senator’s newfound willingness to slum around in bars comes from the Republican camp. You remember, the theory that says people would vote for someone they’d like to have a beer with. That one brought us George W. Bush, a drug-addled, mentally deficient drunk who kills people and destroys economies and craps on democracy at home and abroad.

Apparently the people the Senator hangs with in the bars think they’re getting the real Senator Clinton. They’re not. They’re getting a hustling hussy who’s a proven liar and has demonstrated conclusively that she will do anything for a vote. The Lion, if he were sufficiently cynical, might even suspect she’s giving blow jobs in the back room of those bars, but that might not have anything to do with votes. She might just be getting even with old Bubba Bill.

If the primary voters fall for the Senator’s act, they’ll have shown that they neither understand nor care that the world has changed, and they’ll have proven that they prefer the old style politics of lies, deceptions, and smears. Blow jobs feel great, but are they worth selling out your country?

Laura Bush, Spokeswoman For Humanity…

An AP story by Ben Feller in today’s Globe pushes Laura Bush as a humanitarian.

“The first lady,” writes Feller, “has been a vocal spokeswoman for the administration about Burma…” According to the story she is making a plea to the government of Burma, a repressive and brutal military tyranny, to allow international aid groups to enter the country with relief for the victims of the hurricane that killed thousands and devastated vast areas.

Let’s see, does anyone recall this woman speaking out about Burma before yesterday? More than once?

And where in hell were she and her addlebrained husband when New Orleans and southern Mississippi drowned a couple of years ago? Oh, yeah, right, hubby was setting up photo-ops while his FEMA was screwing Americans.

But now it’s ‘Oh, poor Burma’. Why isn’t this Republican witch doing anything about the homeless in New Orleans, and around the country? About the hungry people in America? About the corruption and incompetence of the wannabe tyrants in American government – starting with her murderous husband?

Crocodile tears for Burma. Piss for America. That’s the Bush way. That’s the Republican way.

Slippery Slopes, Oily Stats…

Overall contributions from gas and oil companies:

McCain $515, 486
Clinton $353,723
Obama $266,097

In the current election cycle:

From Exxon, Obama gets $23,550, second on the list. At fourth place is Clinton with $15,700.

From Chevron, Clinton stands third with $9,350, and Obama seventh with $7,263. McCain gets $5,500.

From BP, Obama is second with $10,196.

The politicians can rail against the oil companies that are screwing us and the country all they want. And the pols can blither all they want that these amounts are such a tiny percentage of contributions that they’ll have no influence. But they might want to remember that worn old adage – money talks, bullshit walks. Except that what we’ve got here is the money talking and the bullshitters taking.


10 Responses

  1. Laura Bush has been engaged in mission of Burma since late (aug-sept) 2007. At that time it was primarily focused on the crackdown by the govt. Katrina relief mishandled and misspent for sure but figures of 110 billion should’ve produced something more.
    Laura Bush also has pretty much stayed with here library background and that has been the primary personal interaction related to Katrina relief. Funds for libraries in the affected areas. Heh! Carnegie did it so why not ? In her case it’s dressing in his it was guilt.
    I really like the oil portion of the post btw. The closing part fair,powerful and classic.


  2. alfie –

    Truth is I liked the ‘fray’ designation better… 🙂

    Little Laura can’t count as a spokeswoman about Burma if she didn’t pay any attention and offer any lip service before the monk slaughter. Everybody was talking about that at the time, but the generals have been there for a long, long time. Where were all the spokespeople before that? What’ve Laura and her drunken daughters been doing while Aung San Suu Kyi has had her life on the line every goddam day? What’s her big contribution to anything, besides enabling her psychopathic husband? She’s just another worthless bullshitting Republican who thinks the high point of life is a photo-op that’s supposed to hide bone-deep hypocrisy.

    Apparently I can’t stand these people.

    Thanks for the comment on the oil. Derrick Jackson (see the link) has a column on it today. I forgot to link the other two pieces. Not myself lately. Who am I really? Enquiring minds don’t give a damn.


  3. Lemme just add that I’ve got nothing against helping the Burmese people, but it’s way past time for the American government to stop treating the American people worse than it treats third world countries.


  4. Well clearly the way you get what you want from Republicans is to be coy. See New Orleans was all, “help, help, please please help” so they got nothing. Myanmar? The government won’t let them in. Now suddenly we have to send aid?

    It’s a cross between a spoiled brat wanting to do something because he’s not allowed and how I used to get the ladies, ignoring them. New Orleans was too easy (it is called the Big Easy), so there was no interest in going in and helping.


  5. pc –

    Ah, so that’s how one gets the women! Okay, I’m going to start practicing ignoring them. Maybe throw in a little zen ninja meditation mind trick here and there. With luck I’ll get one before I hit 90.


  6. You know, as far as I can tell those oil contribution figures include any contribution made by individuals working for those companies. I like to think I’m as suspicious as the next guy, but my political contributions do not reflect the opinions of my employer by a long shot.

    The reason I wondered was because of Obama’s much-touted refusal to accept money from registered lobbyists. I was suspicious of that claim, but it seems to be legit; real checks have apparently been returned with letters explaining why. That didn’t seem to jibe with the idea that he was taking money from oil lobbyists.


  7. b t –

    From Jackson’s column:

    “Historically, political contributions from oil companies are owned by the Republicans. All top 20 recipients of cumulative contributions from Exxon Mobil since 1990 are Republicans with President Bush at the top, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. But with a Democrat having a real shot at the White House, Obama and Clinton reside in their own wonderland, railing against the oil companies while taking money from industry employees.”

    I think the deal is that the money comes through the company as, say, an Exxon contribution. Your manager comes around and says ‘We’re collecting money for Bush. You in or are you out?’ If you like your job, you’re in. But the money doesn’t go out as your donation, I believe. It goes into a bundle from Exxon. If you go home and write a check from your personal account that night to Kerry, that’s your deal, not Exxon’s.

    Any legal beagles out there to clarify this?

    In any event, criticizing the oil companies one day and taking money marked from Chevron the next is politics as usual, which got us where we are today.


  8. That’s kind of the point I was making, Ric; as far as I can tell the money is not necessarily coming from the companies. Funds like that go through specific people who have to be registered as lobbyists, and it’s tracked separately from individual contributions.

    If the monies are gathered and contributed by the oil companies or PACs in their employ, then that’s legitimately up for criticism. Anyone who contributes is asked for their employer’s name, though; if you contribute $200 or more then your individual contribution will show up in a search by employer at a site like fundrace, opensecrets or followthemoney.

    Barack Obama has made a point of not accepting any contributions from the oil companies’ lobbyists (or any lobyists or PACs, actually), for exactly that reason, which is surprisingly unlike politics as usual. (I had a hard time believing at first that he was actually sending checks back, but I’ve confirmed it in at least one case.)

    However, it’s unreasonable to expect him to ban contributions from people who just happen to work for the local Chevron service station, or in an Exxon office, or BP refinery or whatever. Most of us have to work for someone.


  9. Yeah, that helps clarify. And of course I agree with your last paragraph, though if the contributions come from executives and are substantial, I’d be suspicious, especially if there’s a pattern of all executives from the SuperWidget Corporation contributing to the same candidate.


  10. Yeah, we still have to watch for shenanigans. I’m not even saying shenanigans aren’t going on right now, some how some way – just that this data ain’t the smoking grease gun it’s made out to be in this article.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: