Bush lied . . . (True Blue - 2/10/2007 1:45:12 PM)
Gaffe, after gaffe, after gaffe, after gaffe. It seems there's been an endless stream of bigotry and ignorance arising from Virginia's right, with no end in sight. Are they jealous of George Allen's ignominy and eager to get in on the act?
Maybe it was just the fact that George Allen's political hari-kari was so dramatic, so painful to watch, and so immaculately consistent. Here was a guy, who seemed hellbent to prove to the world that right-wing conservatism was out of touch with either human decency or 21st century politics. First it was the M-Word. Then, he was blaming the victim. Then he was insulting the media. Then he was making excuses. Then, he was polling to decide whether to apologize. Then, he saw revelations of his Jewish Heritage as "casting aspersions", then he was distancing himself by proudly proclaiming his mom's skill at making pork chops and ham sandwiches. A deerhead in a mailbox? It went on and on like that right through his election defeat.
Not satisfied to leave all of the attention to George Allen, it seems that other Virginia conservatives just couldn't wait to get in on the action.
Virgil Goode took up the banner of bigotry and ran with it when he identified America's first elected Congressional Muslim as harbinger of a doomsday scenario of immigrants taking over Congress. It didn't matter that Minnesota's Representative Keith Ellison could trace his American ancestry to the 18th century. Goode saw his opportunity to embarrass Virginia and he took it. It is interesting to note that the recent upsurge of KKK membership has been directly linked to anti-immigrant demagoguery.
Then there was Republican Delegate Frank Hargrove who managed to insult both blacks and Jews in the same breath. He said Virginia had no reason to decry it's slave-holding past, but rather that African Americans should just "get over it". Moreover, "asking the state to apologize for slavery would be akin to asking Jews to apologize for killing Christ." The mind boggles, but ink flows like rivers.
Now, we're treated to reactionary-conservative Congressman Eric Cantor's apparent assertion that ground troops should be allowed to declare war. Yeah, read that one again. In a stunning show of ignorance, Mr. Cantor seems willing to deny Congress the right to the most important national decision. Chris Matthews laughs in his face.
It's been like this for a long time, but it must have taken George Allen's infamous "m-word meltdown" to lift it to national attention. Before there was a national news hook, these acts of hatred or idiocy never had a chance to break through the noise machine.
Now, any news release containing both the words "Virginia" and "Republican" is likely to contain some statement of unprecedented idiocy. And now that it feeds in to the bigger theme, "The idiocy of Virginia Conservatives", you can bet headlines will ensue.
Thank you, George Allen, your legacy lives on.
Idiot.
But he's in a safe Republican district (The 7th). The Republicans should primary this guy: he's an idiot, he's wrapped up with Abramoff and DeLay, and he's an embarrassment to the RPV.
Eric Cantor is the poster child for what is wrong with the RPV and their need to develop a more robust primary challenge ability in their safe districts.
I asked him what the President's powers were. He replied that the President had the right to initiate military action against all threats foreign and domestic (really!). I asked if that was the President's prerogative, then what was Congress's role. He replied that the Congress indeed had the power to "declare" war, but viewed this more as a funding power, because he felt both the War Powers Resolution and the Resolution authorizing the Iraq war had ceded to the President the right to decide unilaterally against whom to proceed, with latitude to proceed against whomever he chose, and then to seek approval from Congress later.
Did this mean he could choose to attack Iran, I asked, even if Iran had not actually attacked us. Of course, he replied. The President's powers were clear. HE could decide what threat there was and HE could decide how to proceed, preemptively or not. Okay, I said, what if the President suddenly decided that France or Ireland or Japan or China posed a threat. Under his reasoning the decision to attack preemptively would solely be the President's, wouldn't it? He began to sputter, but replied "he wouldn't do that." That's not what I asked you, I said, does the President have the power to attack whomever he wants to preemptively or otherwise? I kept asking it of him and he kept replying with his own question, which was "so you think Congress should withdraw funding from Iraq?" I said, I'll answer your question, but you have to answer mine first. The guy REFUSED to answer. I finally called him a chicken and walked away.
Long and the short of it, these right-wing ideologues are so caught up in their "interpretation" of the Constitution that they're missing the big picture, which is that not only are they presuming a power to the President which DOES NOT exist, but they are embracing a view of Presidential power which will come back and bite them on the rear a few years from now when the pendulum swings inevitably the other way and there's a Democratic president in office. Do they really want to commit themselves to such an unbalanced view of the executive's power within our system of government?
Make up your own example.
Watch right-wing head explode.