Just for shits, giggles, and relevance, I'm going to repost on this thread today's RANT by former Republican Doug Thompson:
From Capitol Hill Blue
The Rant
An American Hitler and his Gestapo
By DOUG THOMPSON
Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue
Jan 23, 2006, 09:15
The U.S. Department of Justice, led by Alberto “The Constitution is an outdated document” Gonzales, wants to know if you’ve been looking at any racy material on the Internet.
Yahoo and MSN have already complied with subpoenas from Gonzales’ storm troopers demanding records on who is using their search services to look at porno sites on the Internet.
Google, to their credit, said no and is now caught in a tough legal fight against the George Bush’s Gestapo.
Ohmigod! Did he say Gestapo?
Damn right I did. If you don’t think the rights-robbing, privacy-invading, Constitution ignoring administration of George W. Bush is anything less than a Hitler-style Gestapo then you’ve got your head stuffed so far up your ass that all that brown stuff is blinding you.
America, once hailed as the land of the free, has – under the tyranny of King George – become Amerika, reviled as a global thug that doesn’t give a damn about anyone’s rights, especially those of its own citizens.
Protest if you want. Spout the Republican Party line is you can without gagging. I don’t give a damn. If you believe George W. Bush is anything less than an American Hitler then you’re too damn dumb and stupid to argue with anyway.
Bush is an evil man, a power-grapping despot who believes in absolute rule, a madman so wrapped up in his perceived role as “a wartime President” and “Commander in Chief” that he believes no law applies to him or his rotting, corrupt, administration. The Constitution? Why it’s just “a goddamned piece of paper” to this insane megalomaniac.
Legal scholars agree that Bush blatantly broke the law by ordering the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without warrants or court review. The only cretins who support this dictator are the brain-dead Republicans who put power above the law and party loyalty above their country.
Bush is a traitor to his country. As a traitor, he should be led from the White House in chains and tried as one. Since he insists he is a “wartime President,” then let’s try the son-of-a-bitch as a wartime traitor, a Benedict Arnold who turned on his country and gave aid and comfort to its enemies. Bush has done far more damage to the freedoms and security of American than Osama bin Laden. In fact, I’m starting to believe the traitorous asshole is in league with bin Laden and others who want this country destroyed.
No true American would treat the Constitution with the contempt that spills like toxic bile from the lips of George Bush. No true American would continue to support this maniac as he continues to dismantle what once was the greatest country in the world.
Bush is clearly guilty of high crimes against the Constitution of the United States. It’s time to give this reincarnation of Adolph Hitler exactly what he deserves.
© Copyright 2005 Capitol Hill Blue
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_8038.shtml
Posted by God Of War at January 23, 2006 08:56 AMGood luck getting the somnolent Beltway Democrats to pick up on this. Gotta preserve comity. Go along with the club. So what if the club is stacked against you.
Security should be Bush's greatest liability. Yet the Beltway Dems allow it to be his greatest asset, and something that is used against them. And of course the media just lap it up.
What a bunch of worthless tools.
Posted by Mister Go at January 23, 2006 09:01 AMI like the idea of a war room/rapid response team. With Republican influence on the media, it's absolutely essential. I just hope it will have some effect.
How would you suggest it be organized?
Posted by DeminNewJ at January 23, 2006 09:13 AMI agree that the Dems will not act on this, preferring instead to be the 'me-too' party and saying that they support going after terrorists - thereby giving Bush a loophole big enough to drive a Humvee through.
If this is going to happen, it's going to have to originate from the blogosphere - notice how Jane Hamsher's pushback has forced the WaPo to admit Howell's error in her op-ed - err, ombudsman column.
Sadly, the term 'War Room' is a forgotten one by most Dems. If they'd simply stop and look at how Clinton won the first election, they'd see the steps necessary to stop Bush's illegal spying on Americans.
My bet is they won't.
Posted by Stranger at January 23, 2006 09:19 AMWho says the Dems want to win? I just got an email from Kerry, and he actually uses the term "swift boating" to talk about dem candidates bing attacked this year. This from the guy that refused to respond to the swift boating of himself. And according to Liberal Oasis this morning, our "point man" on ethics Obama called ethics problems a bipartisan issue. Why should I work for them or give them money when they won't speak up for themselves, much less for me?
The reason they won't set up a war room is because it takes some effort. These guys are just too fat and happy sitting back on their duffs rather that actually doing a job.
Just look at how they handled the Alito hearings. According to the NY Times, they couldn't pre-plan their attack because they were "out of town," meaning on vacation. Only Bush takes longer vacations.
Posted by walldon at January 23, 2006 09:23 AMThe Democratic strategy seems to be one of waiting for Bu$hco to fall on its face so they can pick up the pieces and take over without exerting a whole lot of effort. That isn't going to work, as Bu$hco has fallen on its face numerous times and has gotten back on its feet, gluing back in place any broken pieces, and carried on as if nothing happened. All the Dems had to do was take any kind of action that would re-establish their credibility, and they would have been on more equal terms. Instead, they play nice and get kicked in the teeth one more time.
Posted by pessimist at January 23, 2006 09:29 AMAnd according to Liberal Oasis this morning, our "point man" on ethics Obama called ethics problems a bipartisan issue.
Ethics is a bipartisan issue. It can and does effect both parties. The current crop is a huge Republican scandal, but that does not make it a partisan issue. The current Abramoff/Republican ethics scandal needs to be addressed criminally, but there does need to be a bipartisan response to set out a future path to ensure that what happened with Abramoff never happens again.
Posted by ann at January 23, 2006 09:31 AMOne of Rove's central points is that the spying was only against Americans in contact with Al Qaeda.
As we know from the NY Times, the spying was against anyone making international calls, as well as their telephone contacts--and who knows who else--all without a warrant! As the FBI said in the NY Times article this week, they've been innundated with useless tips that deplete their limited resources.
Posted by Linda at January 23, 2006 09:36 AMBut, almost all the democrats were a bunch of wimp-ass politicans who gave POTUS a blank check to wage war!!!! cleve
Posted by cleve at January 23, 2006 09:45 AMann, I'm sorry, but when Timmeh asks this:
RUSSERT: [Jack] Abramoff and his clients and his associates gave about $3 million to Republicans, about $1.5 million to Democrats. Is this a bipartisan scandal?
Obama should have said this:
DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat.
Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal.
There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money.
And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true.
And this:
DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff.
There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats.
I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared.
They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes.
The Democrats are not involved in this.
Perhaps you can see the difference? Bipartisan means shit when one party is in power, and as long as the Dems remain pussies, they're not getting my money or my vote anymore.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 23, 2006 09:49 AMImpeachment is for peacetime only, treason by a "wartime president" during time of war requires a firing squad.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 23, 2006 09:51 AMLinda's point demonstrates the worthlessness of the press.
KKKarl's new talking point is directly at odds with what the NYT actually reported about the NSA program, but do you think they will run a SINGLE story declaring KKKarl to be lying? (rhetorical question)
News flash for Dems: EVERYTHING that Bushco does will be framed y KKKarl as necessary to winning the Worre on Terra. That's a given. Any strategy to fight Nero Jr's destructive, illegal and/or insane policies must take into account that Nero's policies will be presented as necessary for terror-reduction and that to oppose them is to aid terrorists.
So either come up with a counter-argument, Dems, like Steve is proposing, or just fade into the woodwork. Saving the country from fascism isn't going to be easy---just ask the Weimar government.
Posted by euzoius at January 23, 2006 09:52 AMiamcoyote, I agree with you in terms of what the response should have been on MTP. I missed the show, btw.
But in terms of the larger issue, looking beyond the current scandal that I hope will end the careers of more than a few Republicans, I think Obama is corrent that it's a bipartisan issue. Not the specific issue with Abramoff, that's Republican through and through.
Posted by ann at January 23, 2006 09:59 AMDemocrats didn’t ignore current law and the Congress to conduct these illegal activities; Bush did.
it would be more accurate to say "break", rather than "ignore".
Posted by at January 23, 2006 10:04 AMI know we think little of AOL polls, but I was shocked to just see this:
Which party do you trust more on national security?
Democrats 54%
There's little difference 24%
Republicans 22%
Total Votes: 3,327
The sample, at this point, is small, but I was still surprised.
OT, does anyone have a plug for the best internet access at a low price?
Ann,
You may have missed MTP, but you could read the transcipt and analysis at Lib Oasis. The point is that Obama had like two minutes and yet his bipartisan comments, while valid, were part of a half-hour argument. He missed an opportunity--partly because he felt a need to appear evenhanded...
Stranger, Carville and Stephanopoulos's War Room was what helped win Clinton's election. We need to establish our own, and start hitting hard.
Posted by Judith at January 23, 2006 10:20 AMAlito must be filibustered.
Bush must be impeached.
Abramoff's buddies must be indicted.
And, most importantly, Herr Rove must be destroyed, and I do mean that in the literal sense.
This illegitimate fucking government is unAmerican, and its got to end.
Posted by God Of War at January 23, 2006 10:22 AMGreat advice.
I'm sure it will be ignored.
Bloggers........sheesh.
Posted by Flamethrower at January 23, 2006 10:24 AMhe felt a need to appear evenhanded...
Paul, what happens when Democrats don't appear evenhanded? Their scream gets played over and over on TV. They are accused of having ill-gotten war medals. Democrats need to call Republicans out, but if they go too far, they risk getting eviscerated in the press over and over. I loved, LOVED Dean calling Wolf Blitzer on his BS. Loved it.
I have to agree with Obama when he said, "Well, I think the problem of money in politics is bipartisan." Because it is. Not in terms of Abramoff, but in terms of money effecting public policy.
What Obama did say, "And I think Jack Abramoff and the K Street Project, that whole thing is a very particular Republican sin," pretty clearly spells out in my mind that he has identified the current situation as Republican.
Like it or not, regardless of who leads the ethics reform effort, the solution has to be bipartisan or it solves nothing.
Posted by ann at January 23, 2006 10:26 AMWe don't need evenhanded anymore. That is exactly why I got pissed when Obama refused to stand up and be counted on MTP when the opportunity was open for him to do so. These dumbshits just never get it! Yeah, you Democrats. Keep kissing the Emporer's ring and your heads will be the first to roll.
Posted by Judith at January 23, 2006 10:30 AMGOW be careful, less the gestapo visits you for threatening the life of KKKarl.
Posted by Judith at January 23, 2006 10:33 AMann, of course, ethics will be bipartisan, if we ever get a voice in congress back. But it's counter-productive to be wishy washy when the country is begging for a real opposition party. Dem "niceness" is easily advertised as "weak." When will they learn that they'll be trashed whether they're nice or not? The numb public will take notice if there's a knock-down, drag-out; they're fucking bored to tears by "nice."
Posted by iamcoyote at January 23, 2006 10:35 AMAnd by bringing up the bipartisan ethics problem in the context of Abramoff's criminal Republican problem, Obama diluted the message that right now, the ruling party is the one with the ethical problem in a criminal way.
But I see the difference, ann. You're discussing the issue, and I'm discussing tactics. It hasn't mattered in the last 5 years how right we are on the issues; if the Dems don't start getting tactical - like having a plan, for instance - then being merely right is going to continue to lose elections.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 23, 2006 10:41 AMThe Dems should forget about runnning against Bush and run against Rove, Abramoff, Norquist, Reed, Cunningham, Delay, Lay, Ney, .... Ever demo backdrop should have them in a row.
Posted by ken melvin at January 23, 2006 10:50 AMWe don't need evenhanded anymore.
Judith, I just can't disagree more. We need a unified position and a clearly articulated platform and someone who can speak to the people. We aren't going to win by screaming and yelling that Bush is a criminal. That doesn't mean I don't think he is, I just don't think that the public will not respond to those kinds of statements, and the Republicans will torch the Democrats who do speak out that way.
Great advice. If only someone wanted to make a fight of it. The national Democrats are virtually helpless. And hopeless.
Our great young hope is repeating GOP talking points already!
The rest of the party cannot bring themselves to call the Liar in Chief a liar, or even bother to get the facts straight themselves.
Posted by zak822 at January 23, 2006 11:04 AMann, who said they should scream and yell? I just want them to fight back, not muddy the waters or as in Joementum's case, agree with Bush. And organize. Here in WA, we're already getting campaign phone calls from Repubs and mailers being sent out comparing Dems to child molesters. Not a peep from dems. And what's wrong with calling Bush the criminal that he is?
Posted by iamcoyote at January 23, 2006 11:10 AMGOW, I also heard Jonathan Turley, Constitutional scooler and former Laywar at the NSA say that it was illegal also. He is not a democrate or a Republican but a libertarian.
Posted by Goose1 at January 23, 2006 11:14 AMAs I said, iamcoyote, Dems need to fight back with a cohesive and coherent platform and all Dems need to be on the same page as to what issues matter.
Personally, I would like Bush impeached, frog marched and sent to one of his secret prisons - preferably the one where they've keeping bin Laden. But Dems can't campaign against Bush because he won't be running. And I do think Dems need to find a way to respond to things like that disgusting mailer you got. Dems need a very smart, very well-stocked war room. And they need it now, because for all the wishing we can do about who might run for President in 2008, what really matters is that Dems win back some seats in 2006.
As for screaming and yelling, I tend to assume the opposite of evenhanded to be shrill and out of control. And the Reps will slaughter anyone who appears shrill or out of control.
Posted by ann at January 23, 2006 11:32 AMBush just finished his diatribe dribble at Konservative State University. While backing away from the podium, George let out a noticeable belch (really, check the tape), it was the only honest thing that came out of his mouth. The "speech", which was supposed to be on domestic spying, hardly touched on the subject. As I type, Rove's goons are removing the duct-tape from the K.S. students that wanted to ask the tuff questions.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 23, 2006 11:50 AMIf this is true,
Which party do you trust more on national security?
Democrats 54%
There's little difference 24%
Republicans 22%
Total Votes: 3,327
How do you explain the last election?
Posted by avaroo at January 23, 2006 12:29 PM"We need a unified position and a clearly articulated platform and someone who can speak to the people. We aren't going to win by screaming and yelling that Bush is a criminal."
well said
Posted by avaroo at January 23, 2006 12:31 PMavaroo,
What you don't realize is that opinions are not static. People's opinions change over time. Nov 2004 was over year ago if you care to remember.
ann, I used to have your sentiment, but after all the Bushco lies, mischaracterizations, smearing, dishonesty, corruption for the past 5 years and continuing again today...I've decided fake outrage and over the top language is the way to go...that is all the republicans do...over the top speaking combined with fake outrage. It's, imho ridiculous and contrary to what I would prefer to act like and do, but unfortunately the way to go. (Go read Diby's latest post about what I am talking about and why I have this sentiment)I'm not saying stoop to their level in terms of lying and all total misinformation (McCain wife is nuts type of stuff,). I'm talking about pure political gut-speak blunt talking. Call serial liars,serial liars, call a bunch of corrupt henchman, a bunch of corrupt henchman as long as you can then back it up (which democrats can). It's the only language these bullies understand, and if they aren't called on the carpet for their words and actions, they continue to bully. Being respectful and even handed only works when the other team is using that same rulebook.
I just think democrats need to use the same tone (minus the lies) and that may involve some blunt name calling back at them. Don't get me wrong, there is a way to do it that I think can be effective as long as it is combined with proposals/solutions. Al Gore started the process with his speech...he used harsh language and supported it with details and solutions/recommendations. Dems need to go on the offensive, and fire often, in the boldest, harshest language they can muster.
Although I may not use the swears and tough language GOW and some others here use to respond to those lying hate-filled trolls that frequent this blog, sometimes when they use it I think it is effective...and the trolls don't like it at all! GOW calls them out on their bullshit often in very harsh tones...oh they may cry and whine...but many times in combination with supporting facts to back him up it's the only language these idiots understand.
Posted by emal at January 23, 2006 12:54 PMHa, ha, avaroo, you got me, pretending to be ann! That was a funny one. It was the inane and cowardly "But they might call us names!" that gave you away. Only a Republican stooge is that much of a pussy. Also, the insistance that I said the dems should scream and yell; totally ignoring that I said dems need a plan; acting as if the world at large will not vote dem if I raise my voice on a blog, and finally, your agreement with yourself as avaroo. I expect your next post will be how Hillary will be the best candidate for '08.
Info on the NSA monitoring: http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2006/01/hayden012306.pdf
Posted by at January 23, 2006 03:45 PM"Dems need to fight back with a cohesive and coherent platform and all Dems need to be on the same page as to what issues matter."
Ann, I agree with that statement. However, it is the Republicans who have been winning, and how did they win? By calling the Democrats un-American, soft on National Security, gay lovers, baby killers, etc. In other words, their shrill voices were able to drown out the voices of reason. Yes, we should have a coherent platform, but we have got to start speaking the truth and stop being afraid of some perceived threat. We don't have to be shrill, but we need to get off our knees and stand tall.
Emal said it all for me.
"Dems need to go on the offensive, and fire often, in the boldest, harshest language they can muster."
Emal, from your mouth to the Dems ears. The secret word here is "offensive."
Posted by Judith at January 23, 2006 04:12 PMEven-handed; not partial or biased: treating or affecting all equally
synonym see FAIR
This will never help us win.
However, it is the Republicans who have been winning, and how did they win? By calling the Democrats un-American, soft on National Security, gay lovers, baby killers, etc.
Well, there's that....then there's also that Diebold thingy. But they are still going to call the Dems soft on terrorism and all those other choice phrases. Dems have got to find a way to find their voice and fight back.
We don't have to be shrill, but we need to get off our knees and stand tall.
I completely agree.
Posted by ann at January 23, 2006 05:08 PMIn my Jr High days I felt sorry for the guys, who on the 1st day of gym class ,
put their athletic supporters on backwards . Regrettably - today we refer to them as Democratic Congressmen ; these are the same useless f#^ks who collapsed after 1 pushup but got A’s in math .
. Unfortunately, most of the GOP is the sire of the antichrist . Geez ! what a country .
The Democrats did not send U.S. troops into battle with inadequate armor; Bush did.
(This is a pet peeve of mine that the Repugs are given the military vote with no pushback. Dems need to talk to the troops and pick up major support.)
Posted by wlmiller at January 23, 2006 06:32 PMI don't understand the military and veterans voting 'pub all the time. They see the mistreatment at the hands of BushCo firsthand (lack of body armor, vulnerable vehicles, untreated PTSD, the list is endless).
Posted by Sharon at January 23, 2006 07:51 PMoops, wlmiller, you already mentioned the lack of armor. Sorry.
Posted by Sharon at January 23, 2006 07:53 PMI don't understand the military and veterans voting 'pub all the time. They see the mistreatment at the hands of BushCo firsthand (lack of body armor, vulnerable vehicles, untreated PTSD, the list is endless).
Sharon: they are indoctrinated, and for those who refuse to be assimilated, you are simply ordered. I have never voted Repug, and never will, until they put a pen in my dead hand and make something resembling an 'X'.
Posted by tempus at January 23, 2006 09:57 PM