Surprise! Repugs' evil helped Dems win

“Without Bush and Cheney and Rove, the Democrats couldn’t have done what they did” in 2006 or 2008, observed David Rohde, a political scientist at Duke University.

This from a story in the Times this morning. Christ, what idiocy! It's like saying Without an opponent, you can't win an election. Bush and Cheney and Rove are the Republican Party--obviously that's what Obama was running against. And I hope he'll remember that and ignore all this "it's a center-right country" bull. The people finally learned what center right is and showed in the election that they don't like it. Now we need Constitutional, Progressive government so badly.

Just saying...

A lot of fundamentalist Republicans seem to be really crazy; I mean to the point of being scary; buying up guns and threatening people. Just threatening them with words so far maybe, but their kind of words can be utterly frightening, one learns from reading right-wing comments on left-wing blogs (the only kind I read). They have such hideous, crazy, cruel fantasties AND they don't ever know how to spell.

So I ask, Is there any way to influence the more rational leaders of the Republican Party to try to educate their followers about "real Americans"? Like, "Hey guys, the real Americans are all the citizens who can vote, and they've just shown who and what [to some extent] they're for. If we want to start winning again, we just might have to change our line." I know I'm dreaming, but how about the Repugs changing so much that they're to the left of the Dems and offering a real choice? And all those crazies will just be left out in the cold (with their guns, but still...). Some might even change their craziness to a different point of view. Just saying.

bloggingheads on the Times

Who ARE these people? Well, I know they're two academics, but come on. Will Obama "fall captive to liberal interest groups and the Democratic Congress?" Please. First of all, liberal interest groups are The People. Second, these particular people put him in office (by voting for him); I sure hope he does what they expect, things like a stimulus package for the economy, getting us out of Iraq, closing Guantanamo, universal health care, restoring the Constitution and all the other things I've left out but we know what they are. That's why Obama was elected: to reverse the course the Bushies put us on. I pray nightly (to the Unseen, perhaps) that he will remain our "captive" in that sense. Oh I wish the Times allowed comments to these stupid videos.

The Times continues an ugly misquote

"When a woman once told Winston Churchill he was drunk, he is said to have replied: “And you, madam, are ugly. But I shall be sober tomorrow, whereas you will still be ugly.”

So the Times says (and I've seen this attribution before), but I've seen the movie (and it's an old movie) in which W.C. Fields says, "...But I'll be sober in the morning and you'll be ugly the rest of your life."

This is just why I have a blog. The Times makes it too hard to respond to most articles and it's so frustrating. But now I can express myself whether they like it or not! Thank you, blogspot!

Simple Equality

A week or so ago I went to a beautiful wedding in San Francisco. Two of my very best friends, both men (or brooms as they referred to themselves), exchanged rings in a simple backyard in Novato, with about 50 friends gathered around. There was music and poetry, wedding cake, flowers, eggshells filled with confetti (brought from Mexico), tears of happiness and lots of laughter. What a wonderful occasion and how inestimably creepy it is to try to stop such moments. Propositon 8 would do that, deny the right to marriage to two people of the same gender. I'm hoping No to Prop 8 will win the day; any other conclusion would be too cruel and unfair. So, America or Amerika--which will it be? Fingers crossed.

The Times on Mexican drug killings

A story today again about the drug killings in Mexico and their effect on children says this is happening "throughout Mexico" but reports on horrible incidents in Tiajuana only (and refers to the state of Chihuahua having the most killings). Why do they do this? Why do they hate Mexico? Gosh, I live in Mexico and I can tell you it's a big big country. The crime rate at the border does not hold true in the interior, at least not in the mountains of Guanajuato. It's as if killings in Detroit were reported in a Mexican paper as indicating the violence level throughout the US. Please New York Times, give us a break!

The Little Man Who Isn't All There

Hmmm, I wonder why John McCain wants to "postpone" the debate. Could it be he (and/or his staff) knows how sick he'll look next to Barack (and not just because of that white pallor)? Or could it be because he can't deal with two things at once (the bailout and the debate; chewing gum and walking down the street at the same time)?

It gets harder and harder to see how anyone could want this man to be president of the United States. And it seems logical that after they appear head-to-head, it will be almost impossible for anyone other than hard-core Repugs and those who are pretty much comatose. These people (his backers) are desperate; they know their candidate is almost literally on his last legs and they know that people are beginning to realize who he's chosen to back him up. Ugh.

Barack, go there and face an empty chair if necessary--that's my advice, and this blog is the only way I have to impart it.