The Most Vulgar, Disgusting, and Foul Joke in the World

A well-known writer walked into a producer’s house and said to the producer that he had come up with a great act. The producer, intrigued, told the writer to briefly describe his idea.

“Well,” said the writer, “I have an idea for a political party who claims to be against the war in Iraq, but won’t do anything about it. The party will also claim to be against torture, but won’t do anything about that either. In fact, they will be swept into power precisely because of their public opposition to both of those things, but privately they will be informed of possible acts of torture performed by our government, and they won’t say anything about it. At any rate, they continue their two-faced behavior- publicly opposing the war and torture, but privately being apparently content with it, until the end of their congressional term, when they will all gather together on the floor of the House, where they will all publicly shit on the original version of the Constitution, on loan from the National Archives.”

The producer looked at the writer, and said, “That is really quite disgusting. What do you call the act?”

The writer responded, “The Democrats.”

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






110 replies
  1. 1
    jcricket says:

    Basically the only thing that drives me more nuts than the destruction the Republicans are wreaking on the environment, US economy and world politics is the Democratic complicity in it.

    It’s bad enough that the megomaniacal end-timers and anti-tax-jihadists promote idiotic policies, but why oh why do the Dems have to pull a Specter and just go along with it?

    Dems don’t need to turn into Hugo Chavez to put up spirited opposition to every fucked up thing the Republicans are doing. And I bet it would reap pretty big dividends at election time.

    Dems could articulate a full-throated defense for Social Security, getting out of Iraq, protecting the environment, real tax fairness, etc. and not lose a single vote. But they far too often “buy” the Republican framing of events and fear seeming “weak” or “out of touch” when the opposite is in the case.

  2. 2
    jcricket says:

    By defense I actually meant “case”. See, even I buy into the idea that Republicans are always the attackers/antagonists.

  3. 3
    Zifnab says:

    Cheers to that, John. Couldn’t have said it better.

  4. 4

    Yeah, all very true, but better than the Republicans.

  5. 5
    Tim F. says:

    Pelosi and Reid out in ’09. Moses wasn’t let in Israel either, and for the same reasons.

  6. 6
    Robert Johnston says:

    At this point, more than any other feeling I might have towards them, I resent the Democrats. I resent that they make me feel dirty for voting against the Republicans. Voting against the Republicans should be a guilt free endeavor, and it’s not.

    I resent how the Democrats feed my cynicism about politics. I expect so little from the Democrats, and they provide even less, yet they’re still clearly the lesser evil and must be voted for.

    I’ve always had a tinge of obnoxious cynicism about politics to me, but the current Democrats actually justify and even demand obnoxious cynicism as a response, and I truly and deeply resent the party as a result.

  7. 7
    DrDave says:

    Very good adaptation, John. The Democrats are both more frustrating and far less funny than Penn Gilette’s movie.

    It’s bad enough that Bush/Cheney have been wiping their collective ass with the Constitution but it would be gratifying if the Dems wouldn’t continue to enable them.

  8. 8
    weinerdog43 says:

    Sad, but true.

  9. 9
    John S. says:

    Well said, John.

    The funny thing is that for all of Michael D.’s bitching about how we are all partisan Democrats, this is where that claim falls flat. Sure partisan Democrats stand up for what they believe in and tend to reflexively reject ideas that come from the Republicans. Of course they tend to favor the ideals and thinking that the Democratic party represents. But there is one major difference.

    Partisan Democrats hate elected Democrats that fail them more than any partisan Republican ever could. They will not hold back their disdain and vitriol for elected Democrats, even if that can be used by Republicans as fodder. Democrats will speak ill of other Democrats if they don’t like what they are doing.

    You will hardly EVER see that amongst partisan Republicans. In fact, for the most part, NEVER.

  10. 10
    wasabi gasp says:

    They don’t say ta-da at the end? I like the ta-da. Maybe they save ta-da for concession speeches.

  11. 11
    Dreggas says:

    To quote the queen…Off with their heads.

    Like was said elsewhere, now we know why impeachment was “off the table”. To think I defended these shitstains too.

    Just un-fucking-believable.

  12. 12
    zmulls says:

    I too am choking down a sense of outrage about the headlines this morning.

    But I am going to wait a day or two — this could just as easily be a Rovesque ratf**k tossing mud at Democrats so we’d have the “they all do it” reaction that we’re having.

    Where’s the story coming from, and who is leaking it? I can easily believe that they were told something innocuous, but not anywhere near the whole story.

    Rockefeller has been weak at best throughout this administration, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there were substantial truth to the report. But I’m trying to wait for a couple more shoes to drop before instantly believing what I read in the morning paper….

  13. 13
    les says:

    I’m sorry John, fascinating premise, but it’ll never work; you’d have to force people to watch a movie like that.

    Oh, wait…

  14. 14
    alphie says:

    Maybe there will be some competition for Congressional leadership spots soon?

    Step down, Nancy.

    Step down, Harry.

  15. 15
    Jake says:

    Call me cynical but anyone who thinks the (D) beside a legislator’s name automatically makes him a font of goodness and light may as well vote Republican. At least you won’t be shocked when that fucker screws up. Look at Joe Lieberman the “Independent.” It is too laugh.

  16. 16
    Sidelights says:

    The most disgusting joke in the world

    The most disgusting joke in the world…

  17. 17
    Zifnab says:

    Partisan Democrats hate elected Democrats that fail them more than any partisan Republican ever could. They will not hold back their disdain and vitriol for elected Democrats, even if that can be used by Republicans as fodder. Democrats will speak ill of other Democrats if they don’t like what they are doing.

    You will hardly EVER see that amongst partisan Republicans. In fact, for the most part, NEVER.

    That’s not true. Republicans will eat their own as often as Democrats. The difference is that when a Democrat gets out of line, he gets angry letters from DKos readers. When a Republican gets out of line, he’s labeled a “liberal” on talk radio and vilified accordingly.

  18. 18
    Media Glutton says:

    The fact that Nancy knew should be reason enough to get new Dem leadership in the House. It’s also indicative of how the Dem leadership acts behind closed doors and why they appear weak to us outsiders. Ta da! They are weak insiders, too!

    Did Harry know, though?

  19. 19

    […] The Aristocrats Democrats Filed under: Uncategorized — cleek @ 12:29 pm […]

  20. 20
    jrg says:

    What gets me is the fact that so many Dems seem to think” “We’ll just go along and play nice. In the end we will win”.

    Think about the political gains the Dems could have had if they stood up forcefully against Bush on Iran, before the recent intel was released.

    Is there anything Bush can do to get impeached? The man could eat a baby during the next State of the Union address, and the Dems would issue a press release noting their “disappointment”.

    Reid, Pelosi, and H Clinton might be gutless, spineless jellyfish, but at least they are not trying to get more Americans killed in the M.E.

    As bothered as I am by the Dem’s performance, I’m still going to get out and vote for them in ’08. At least no Dem has ever accused be of being a “Traitor” who “Hates America”. I’ve never seen a Dem argue that we should eliminate the separation of church and state, so we can become more like Iran or Pakistan.

    I’ll have the Turd sandwich…

  21. 21
    cleek says:

    another reason to tell the DNC to Fuck Off when they call begging for money!

  22. 22
    chopper says:

    this is why i’m so cynical for the future. the dems are supposed to be the bulwark against the craziness of the GOP, and look at what they’re giving us.

    see also the fact that most americans are inbred hicks who can’t find their own ass with two hands, a map, a sherpa guide and a homosexual dwarf.

  23. 23
    Dug Jay says:

    Rubbish. At worse, perhaps it should be: “The Democrats.” “Hypocritical Humans.”

  24. 24
    LITBMueller says:

    Silly sheep! Stop paying attention and go back to watching “Dancing With the Stars”!!! This is THEIR government, not YOURS! And everything they do…every decision they make…is only designed to either increase or maintain their own power.

    So, unless Pelosi finds out that one of her big campaign donors has been tortured, don’t expect her to actually lift a finger.

  25. 25
    demimondian says:

    Well, in this case, at least the fRight wing will be right when they say “The Democrats did it, too.” Obviously, I’d like to wait for better data — but, sadly, this report is so consistent with the behavior of the folks in the Congress that I think it’s probably largely true.

    If so, it also explains the incomprehensible behavior of Rockefeller during the last couple of years: he was trying to cover his own ass.

  26. 26
    Dreggas says:

    Reid, Pelosi, and H Clinton might be gutless, spineless jellyfish, but at least they are not trying to get more Americans killed in the M.E.

    Eh, she would, she did after all vote for the Kyl-Leiberman bill on Iran. Of course she will dissemble on that “If only I knew then what I know now…” and still not apologize.

  27. 27
    Andrew says:

    Reid, Pelosi, and H Clinton might be gutless, spineless jellyfish, but at least they are not trying to get more Americans killed in the M.E.

    I don’t agree with this statement.

  28. 28
    ThymeZone says:

    Well, I saw Rockefeller yesterday on Deface The Nation. he seemed to be saying, torture bad, torture bad, but as far as what went on in our briefings in 2002, I can’t comment.

    I am under the impression that it would be a violation of law to come out of those meetings and talk about the content of the meeting. Havent had time to google it all up. But it seems to me we’ve woven a web of defense and intelligence law that puts duct tape over the mouths of everyone involved.

    But aside from that, what I am reminded of is that in 2002 this country was acting completely nuts. And the zeal to fight and get revenge for 911 was palpable, and it was coming from the citizenry. The people who have turned against “the war” and elected a slim Dem majority (which you, John, want to characterize as “sweeping into power” which is just a silly view of what really happened, since there is little actual power involved in the recent election shift) were very much in favor of just about anything rotten we could do to the ragheaded brown people in 2002, which is why the whole country, including the press, the congress, and the voters all sat back and made popcorn while George Bush … as the figurehead of the Cheney Presidency …. hammered on the war drums.

    To sit here now and look back five years and say that somebode ELSE should have taken a position against anything those guys were doing, when there wasn’t a peep of opposition from hardly anyone at the time for anything they were doing, seems to me to be just a little too cute.

    Should people be ashamed of the way we acted in 2002? Sure, a lot of people should, and some of them are right here on this blog.

  29. 29

    What a funny joke. Such misdirection.

    Let’s blame the Democrats for bankrupting America fiscally and morally, for starting a war based on lies and nonexistent WMDs, for ruining our international reputation, for not catching our actual enemy Bin Laden, for lining the pockets of Halliburton et al., for drowning competent government in Grover Norquist’s filthy bathtub, for killing 600K+ people, for encouraging the pro-torture crowd, for infiltrating the US government with braindead anti-democracy anti-law Talibangelicals . . .

    Really, it’s Karl Rove’s wet-dream joke, isn’t it?

    Haha.

  30. 30
    Xenos says:

    The Democratic leadership has been compromised by the GOP. That is unfortunate, but speaks more to the criminality of the bastards in the Republican party than about the Democratic party as a whole.

    Still, revolution begins at home. If we Democrats can’t clean our own house, forget it.

  31. 31
    DR says:

    The Democrats did stand there and do nothing; but it’s the Republicans who actually burned the Constitution to a crisp, let’s not forget it:

    It wasn’t the Dems who passed the “Military Commissions Act”. Too many Dems voted for it, yes, but the Repugs voted for it en masse. So before you tar and feather the Dems, don’t forget who’s on the other side of the aisle.

  32. 32
    ThymeZone says:

    Really, it’s Karl Rove’s wet-dream joke, isn’t it?

    Well, it’s just the way they planned it. Slam the commitments when nobody was asking questions, and then set up the Dems to be fighting among themselves when accountability time rolls around.

    These are the facts: This country is bellicose in nature, and we should stop pretending otherwise. The rest of the world knows it, and we deny it. The Democrats couldn’t have opposed the war machine in 2002 in any way shape or form without committing political suicide, because we, the voters, wouldn’t have had their backs.

    So it’s a little disingenous now for the “netroots” to be bashing the Dems retroactively for 2002. We are the problem, not them. We are an ugly country right now, and they didn’t make us that way.

  33. 33
    demimondian says:

    Sorry, TZ, but that’s nonsense. The ability to disclose without fear of negative consequences is the core of the Speech and Debate Clause; fundamentally, you can’t be punished for what you say on the House or Senate floor if you’re a representative.

    No, the stories, if true, are simple and clear: Rockefeller, Pelosi and Harman put their careers ahead of their country. Sorry, folks, but I pay you to do better than that.

  34. 34
    Gus says:

    No Blood for Hubris, I would argue that the Democrats are complicit in all of those things for triangulating and not taking a strong stand if nothing else. The thing that really sucks is probably 25% of people will ever bother to learn anything about this.

  35. 35
    jrg says:

    Eh, she would, she did after all vote for the Kyl-Leiberman bill on Iran. Of course she will dissemble on that “If only I knew then what I know now…” and still not apologize.

    Point taken. The fact that she did this twice (after we were all lied to about WMD in Iraq) is very disturbing to me. Either she is naive, or she does not have the good sense to learn from past mistakes, or she is simply afraid to be labeled “soft on terror”.

    Any way you slice it, it says a lot about her “leadership” ability. “HRC” has become synonymous with waffling, triangulation, and inaction.

    I guess is boils down to this: would you rather vote for someone who carries a messianic belief that they can do no wrong, or someone so concerned with their image, they cannot work up the courage to do anything right?

    I’ll choose the latter.

  36. 36
    ThymeZone says:

    The ability to disclose without fear of negative consequences

    Then the last 30, 40, 50 years of these people all stating that they are bound not to talk about what is covered in the defense and intelligence briefings … all lies? All just a practical joke on us?

    And you’ve known this, and said nothing? What am I missing here? Within the last 24 months I have seen congresspeople in front of cameras stating in unambiguous terms, that they were forbidden to speak of these matters.

    What was that about? Was the entire Cold War and all its secrecy just a big har-dee-har on us?

    WTF man?

  37. 37
    demimondian says:

    And, no, TZ, I will not accept “that’s how it’s done” as an answer. In the long run, Karl Rove will be dead, just as you and I will. Our job is to leave things in a better state than we found them, not to shrug and mutter.

    Perhaps that’s how things *are* done, but is it how things *should be* done? Pelosi et al. have been in the majority for almost two years, and, at any time during that period, they could have stood up and said, “Look, my hands are not clean on this, and I need to make that clear. I was briefed on these activities back when they were still classified, and here’s what I thought/felt/did.”

  38. 38
    demimondian says:

    Then the last 30, 40, 50 years of these people all stating that they are bound not to talk about what is covered in the defense and intelligence briefings … all lies? All just a practical joke on us?

    And you’ve known this, and said nothing? What am I missing here? Within the last 24 months I have seen congresspeople in front of cameras stating in unambiguous terms, that they were forbidden to speak of these matters.

    Um, yes. You didn’t realize that?

    I can’t speak — the Speech and Debate Clause doesn’t protect me. But, yes, Congressfolk have always had that ability — hell, Mike Gravel used it to read the freaking Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record!

  39. 39
    Sojourner says:

    And the zeal to fight and get revenge for 911 was palpable, and it was coming from the citizenry. The people who have turned against “the war” and elected a slim Dem majority (which you, John, want to characterize as “sweeping into power” which is just a silly view of what really happened, since there is little actual power involved in the recent election shift) were very much in favor of just about anything rotten we could do to the ragheaded brown people in 2002, which is why the whole country, including the press, the congress, and the voters all sat back and made popcorn while George Bush … as the figurehead of the Cheney Presidency …. hammered on the war drums.

    This is all well and good but does nothing to explain our newly acquired taste for torture and our willingness to sacrifice our constitutional rights. Regardless of one’s position on the war, what has happened with these issues is truly reprehensible.

    What do we hear from the American people on these issues? Don’t blame the politicians. We get the representation we deserve.

    And the denial will continue for decades. The U.S. is the world’s moral thought!

  40. 40
    ThymeZone says:

    I will not accept “that’s how it’s done” as an answer

    I have no idea how you take what I wrote and turn it into “that’s how it’s done.” I said nothing of the kind.

    I spoke here almost exclusively of the supposed outrage over the 2002 events.

    And again you have not addressed the putative legal constraints on what these people can say about those briefings. Are you just fucking with me, or what?

  41. 41
    PonB says:

    Hey John – When Gilbert Gottfried tells this joke, there’s at least one dog included. Can you go look for the dog? I’ll wait…

    – PonB

  42. 42
    demimondian says:

    again you have not addressed the putative legal constraints on what these people can say about those briefings. Are you just fucking with me, or what?

    Comment ordering issue. If you want more details, follow John’s link to Greenwald’s first pace, and then read the updates.

  43. 43
    Pb says:

    alphie,

    In the House, at least, I think Pelosi is the best leader we can reasonably expect to get for the Democrats–and that’s sad. But really, what if she did step down–look at the rest of the bunch. Steny? Rahm? No, I don’t think so. As for the Senate, I don’t know if Durbin would do better than Reid, but I think the prospects for better leadership there look brighter than they do in the House.

  44. 44
    ThymeZone says:

    I can’t speak—the Speech and Debate Clause doesn’t protect me.

    IANAL, and I don’t care to parse the legalities. But the public face has been consistent and unambiguous for around fifty years of my own recollection.

    Why are we coming along NOW and claiming that it was all just a joke? Where was the cry for exposure of the secrets a long time ago? Are you pretending that the paranoid delusions of insecurity and the war machine, after all these decades, are only now to be put aside and we are to pretend that people in congress should have stood up against this even though the voters would never have supported them? Not in 1962, not in 1982, and not in 2002.

    Where the hell were you with your pure anti-war, anti-torture positions in 2002? I was yelling to stop the war machine. I was yelling to stop it in the Gulf War. I don’t need any lecture about the desirability of a bellicose country, I’ve always been against it. But my problem is, I have been in a tiny minority that wasn’t even on the radar.

    So don’t fucking yell at me.

  45. 45
    ThymeZone says:

    You didn’t realize that?

    Nope. Explain to me how defense and intelligence breifings can be exposed to public view in the context of this country’s structural behavior in this area in the last 70 years?

    I must have missed something.

  46. 46
    demimondian says:

    OK, so the Speech and Debate Cluase protects members of Congress during Speech and Debate while they are performing their jobs. (E.g. they are protected during floor debate or during committee hearings.) The protection is finite; it does not extend to daily life.

    You and I have no part of it; it’s a special privilege extended in order to permit full and complete debate in the legistlative branch; literally, nothing is off-limits. The only bounds are what the individual congressmen and -women impose.

  47. 47
    ThymeZone says:

    So you are telling me that these guys can walk out of the intelligence briefing and go to the floor and declare what they heard?

    And that 50 years or more of their declarations to the contrary are just piffle?

    I think my computer is broken, it seems to have descended into a hell of cognitive dissonance …….

  48. 48
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    Eh, she would, she did after all vote for the Kyl-Leiberman bill on Iran. Of course she will dissemble on that “If only I knew then what I know now…” and still not apologize.

    Hillary Clinton: because handing a loaded gun to an idiot just once wasn’t enough.

  49. 49
    demimondian says:

    So you are telling me that these guys can walk out of the intelligence briefing and go to the floor and declare what they heard?

    Yes. That is exactly what I’m telling you.

    You *honestly* didn’t realize that it was all based on a lie? Really?

  50. 50
    ThymeZone says:

    You honestly didn’t realize that it was all based on a lie? Really?

    Unless I am hallucinating, I have heard the critters describe legal (statutorial) restrictions on their ability to expose these matters …. for years and years.

    Now comes demi to tell me, that was all just bullshit.

    Well if it was, why did we wait until 2007, trillions down the drain for defense, and a total mash of the Constitution’s intent of investing Congress with war powers, allowing the Congress to pass resolutions in which it walked away from its repsonsibilities? Etc Etc?

    Where were the fucking citizens and their pitchforks? If we sat here all this time and let this happen then what are doing trying to retroactively blame Democrats for torture schemes of five years ago?

    Ya lost me here somewhere, dude.

  51. 51
    Tsulagi says:

    Go Ron Paul!

    Seriously, these Democrats disgust me. If Rudy gets elected, I should probably start picking out my summer clothes for Gitmo. Because I’ll probably then be on an expanded enemies list because of past contributions to Democratic candidates. Gitmo could become a cabinet level agency with new Commandant Mitt overseeing a Guantanamo building boom. And Democrats, even if still a majority in Congress, would do nothing. Okay, maybe a sternly worded Sense of the Senate resolution expressing reservations.

    Prior to Bush, I’d never given a politician or party money. Not a funding priority for me. But sometime after Patriot Act, Freedom Fries, about the time seeing doing Iraq in coming months was a done deal, and if you questioned those or Bush being the most awesome studliest genius prez ever you became a traitor and unpatriotic, that changed. Since then my contributions to the Democratic Party, Dem candidates, and even the evildoer ACLU have slid into five figures. Taken a lot of shit over that from some of the people I work with.

    What do I have to show for it from Dems? Zip. Not happy. This crap that “Well, they don’t have the numbers,” not buying it anymore. Watching them since the midterms, even if they had a two-thirds majority in Congress, they’d still find a way to Bush up and spine down. Going ass up, because if they don’t, the other guys would be more mad at them and call them more names.

  52. 52
    demimondian says:

    It sucks feeling like a yokel, doesn’t it, Herb?

    Yes, your representatives have not been telling you the complete truth. They know more than they’re telling, and, yes, they could speak freely without fear of legal or civil repercussions. They still might face disciplinary action in their respective Houses of Congress, and, of course, they’d still need to face the voters, but that is all.

  53. 53
    Zifnab says:

    In the House, at least, I think Pelosi is the best leader we can reasonably expect to get for the Democrats—and that’s sad. But really, what if she did step down—look at the rest of the bunch. Steny? Rahm? No, I don’t think so. As for the Senate, I don’t know if Durbin would do better than Reid, but I think the prospects for better leadership there look brighter than they do in the House.

    No kidding, there. Pelosi hasn’t exactly been dynamic, but she’s everything the Republican Majority pissed itself in fear that she would be – liberal and from San Fransisco. You wouldn’t see the Energy Bill or hike to Minimum Wage or any number of other progressive reforms under a Democratic speaker from Detroit or New York. Pelosi, given the circumstances, has done ok but not fantastic. I don’t know if she deserves to get crucified for this, especially when guys like Rahm and Hoyer are the jackasses knee-capping all the genuine progressives.

    Reid’s in an even worse mess, because he’s working with a 50 vote “majority”. Shit could easily hit the fan if guys like Ben Nelson or Joe Lieberman were swan-songed off across the aisle. Things will be different if we see another landslide in ’08, but for now he’s working with some very thin margins for error.

    I’m willing to cut them slack when it comes to actually passing reform legislation. When anti-Torture Bills and Immigration Bills and Civil Rights Bills and Stem Cell Bills get vetoed or filibustered over and over again… that’s just the nature of the Senate.

    But when its Reid’s turn to be obstructionist – with the Telecomm Amnesty Bill and the Iraq Funding Bill – all he needs is 40 votes to hold the line. When Reid fails there, I get really pissed. In that sense, Reid has a much easier time than Pelosi, and he still comes up short.

  54. 54
    ThymeZone says:

    Yes, your representatives have not been telling you the complete truth.

    No, what sucks is living in a citizenry that apparently thinks this is okay, right up to the day when it decides, oops, maybe in the hands of these potatoheads, it isn’t okay, and then shits on the OTHER PARTY retroactively for not “doing something” about it when the voters never had any intention, never showed any intention, never gave any hint that they’d stand behind them for doing so, or wanted them to do so.

    What a crock. If you want a different country, you have to get better citizens. We have the power and we’ve always had it. We didn’t get from there to here because Nancy Pelosi didn’t speak up in 2002. We got here because we voted for the war machine for 70 frigging years.

  55. 55
    srv says:

    Well if it was, why did we wait until 2007, trillions down the drain for defense, and a total mash of the Constitution’s intent of investing Congress with war powers, allowing the Congress to pass resolutions in which it walked away from its repsonsibilities? Etc Etc?

    Because Harry and Nancy were good boys and girls, and knew their place. As you wax and wane non-stop, they simply can’t do anything until they have a clear majority. Even then, they couldn’t possibly talk about such things…

    Alas. Uncle George is very smart – all those winks between them, they didn’t think he’d actually tell anybody. I’m sure they’re just sitting there right now, trying to figure out who to call at the WH and what exactly they need to apologize for.

    Like that’ll matter. I predict many more embarrasing revelations during the election cycle to come. I’m sure that’ll help with getting a majority.

  56. 56
    demimondian says:

    BS, TZ. I blame Pelosi et al. for not acting when they should have. That you didn’t realize that they had an alternative isn’t my fault — I knew it, and so did they.

    What I didn’t know was whether they knew. If they knew, then, yes, they should have told me.

  57. 57
    John S. says:

    Republicans will eat their own as often as Democrats. The difference is that when a Democrat gets out of line, he gets angry letters from DKos readers. When a Republican gets out of line, he’s labeled a “liberal” on talk radio and vilified accordingly.

    You don’t see the error in your own rebuttal of my original premise?

    When Democrats get out of line, they are pilloried by Democrats.

    When Republicans get out of line, they are not pilloried by actual Republicans – those poeple are really RINOs or liberals or closet-Democrats. This little rub is quite illuminating. Democrats allow dissent, and don’t immediately brand it as traitorous behavior – Republicans do not. It’s just that simple. If that were not the case, then your statement above would not be true.

    Troll protection: When a Democrat so fundamentally breaks with the ideals of the party, they are called out as thus. The likes of Zell Miller left the party – the party didn’t leave him.

  58. 58
    ThymeZone says:

    BS, TZ. I blame Pelosi et al. for not acting when they should have. That you didn’t realize that they had an alternative isn’t my fault—I knew it, and so did they.

    What I didn’t know was whether they knew. If they knew, then, yes, they should have told me.

    Sorry, but I don’t believe you. Either you are wrong on the law, or else these people have been lying through their teeth for my entire lifetime and NOBODY HAS SAID A PEEP ABOUT IT until now.

    Sorry, doesn’t compute. In order to believe you, I have to believe that these officials have sat there in full view of the world and made up the whole rationale in law out of whole cloth, and bamboozled an entire nation into being a bellicose actor on the world stage without so much as an editorial in The Nation to speak against it.

    No sale, demi. sorry.

  59. 59
    demimondian says:

    Um, TZ? Snookums? Go read Greenwald. Seriously. You’re wrong that nobody’s said a peep about it: Gravel read the whole freeking Pentagon Papers into the Congressional record.

  60. 60
    ThymeZone says:

    Gravel read the whole freeking Pentagon Papers into the Congressional record.

    Sure, but Gravel is an outlier. The fact is, the populace of this country has chosen a bellicose face for the nation since WWII, and it has gotten what it asked for.

  61. 61
    empty says:

    Sure, but Gravel is an outlier. The fact is, the populace of this country has chosen a bellicose face for the nation since WWII, and it has gotten what it asked for.

    TZ that might be,but what demi keeps trying to tell you is that congressional speech on the floor is protected. This is either correct or not. Whether you can or cannot accept it is somewhat irrelevant as is whether Gravel is an outlier.

  62. 62
    Darkness says:

    The tiny positive thing about the democrats having their balls cut off and their spines removed (in the short term, anyway) is it is possible for someone else (read: The People) to give them a swift kick in the right direction to at least slow this deadly descent into ruination we have going here. If you try doing that to a republican, they’ll bite your foot off and then kick you over by knocking your remaining leg out from under you. And then probably suck greedily on the bleeding stump until you pass out and they can make a clean get-away and claim they never saw you.

    This is just a stop gap plan before we get Better Democrats(tm) which is a theme growing on a number of blogs, which gives me some whimpering, glimmering hope.

    srv says:
    Because Harry and Nancy were good boys and girls, and knew their place. As you wax and wane non-stop, they simply can’t do anything until they have a clear majority. Even then, they couldn’t possibly talk about such things…

    Even without a majority, they could still raise a stink. They should be articulate, clear and loud about what they stand for, even if they can’t do anything about it. But they don’t even use their voices, so they get no credit for possible good intentions from me. It’s like they all have POW syndrome or something. I swear sometimes watching Nancy and Harry, that’s the only model I can come up with to explain their behavior.

  63. 63
    jenniebee says:

    Wow – there’s still a Constitution left to shit on – I totally did not see that coming.

  64. 64
    Pb says:

    TZ, demi, empty, etc.:

    Here’s a good post on exactly this issue, and wrt. the speech and debate clause.

  65. 65
    ThymeZone says:

    Wow – there’s still a Constitution left to shit on – I totally did not see that coming.

    That is food-spit funny.

  66. 66

    This is the lesson they learned from Vietnam.

    They’re waiting for bi-partisan support to end this cluster fuck. It’s just not there yet. The media would annihilate the Democrats if they did anything about this.

  67. 67
    ThymeZone says:

    Well, but here it is, the rub, from your link, Pb:

    I’m not saying this would be easy or politically painless. The political risks are obvious – and recall the Congress was being briefed not all that long after 9/11. But even without the national security angle or the political frenzy angle, there were also counterveilling issues of fundamental personal ethics As Rep. Harman noted,

    “When you serve on intelligence committee you sign a second oath — one of secrecy,” she said. “I was briefed, but the information was closely held to just the Gang of Four. I was not free to disclose anything.”
    Serious people take oaths like this seriously and are right to do so; but before they took that second oath, they took a first one upon taking office in which they promised to “preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States.” To the extent that the second oath allows the executive to muzzle members of Congress, it is unconstitutional under any theory, including not only the Speech and Debate clause, but also the Incompatibility Clause (which forbids members of congress from serving in the executive branch; a converse conclusion is that this clause forbids the executive branch from turning members of Congress into subordinates).

    Who gets to decide, while writhing in a bowl of spaghetti-like laws and policies, where the loyalties lie, where the line between judgement and treason might lie? It’s pretty clear to me that over my lifetime (which begins at 1946) the use of “secrecy” and the use of words like “classified” have been de rigueuer in terms of stonewalling debate, shutting out the press, and bamboozling the public … but my point is, that’s what the public wanted, and voted for, and got. What you have today didn’t emerge out of the brain of Karl Rove. It emerged out of six decades at least of America voting for the War Party, which is the modern term for Republicans and Democrats who have gone along with this shit.

    To talk now as if this or that particular official is to blame, or should have decided to go against this tide, is just the hubris of blogspeak AFAIC. Doesn’t mean a damned thing. When the people elect officials who will do what you are talking about wanting them to do, then you will get change. Not until.

  68. 68
    Punchy says:

    Speaking of jokes, I had to do a double take on this CNN headline.

  69. 69

    The last time I can remember a congress critter coming out of a committee and leaking info was Torricelli with the CIA informant Guatemala killing back in 1995.

  70. 70

    Exactly who is it the Democrats are afraid of? I’m about as pissed as I’ve ever been. So I’ve bitched about it and that’ll accomplish what?

  71. 71
    ThymeZone says:

    When the people elect officials who will do what you are talking about wanting them to do, then you will get change. Not until.

    And to sum up, this means Vote Democrat in 2008. Get more seats. If you do or say anything between now and November of next year that takes away one seat in either house, then you are defeating your own purpose. Once you have slain the Beast that now torments us, then you can start in on reforming the Democratic Party, which will be both necessary, and difficult.

    But timing is everything. If you start just bashing things now because you are pissed off, you risk endangering the slaying of the Beast next year. That’s exactly what the Beast wants you to do. Fight among yourselves and then find yourself wondering what the hell happened a year from now.

  72. 72

    I have to agree with TZ. Nobody is going to touch this thing, until the public is mad enough that they’re willing to back up the politicians in the streets.

    As long as the public is apathetic, the politicians won’t push it.

    That’s just reality.

    And I don’t think Cindy Sheehan is going to win a primary bid against Pelosi. So sorry. Keep on shouting, and maybe someone will finally listen.

  73. 73

    Exactly who is it the Democrats are afraid of? I’m about as pissed as I’ve ever been. So I’ve bitched about it and that’ll accomplish what?

    It takes time. Sorry, it does. The framework has to be laid, so that the public historical view is that this was all the fault of the GOP.

    We’re no longer debating whether we get out of Iraq. Right now we’re debating who is to blame for the failure.

  74. 74

    But timing is everything. If you start just bashing things now because you are pissed off, you risk endangering the slaying of the Beast next year. That’s exactly what the Beast wants you to do. Fight among yourselves and then find yourself wondering what the hell happened a year from now.

    Agreed. That’s the game the Republicans are playing right now. They’re hoping for a Nader effect in 2008 to help them win.

  75. 75
    ThymeZone says:

    And I don’t think Cindy Sheehan is going to win a primary bid against Pelosi. So sorry. Keep on shouting, and maybe someone will finally listen.

    I hope we can elect some more Jim Webbs. I see him smothered in there amongst the lifers on the Hill hoping to god we elect him some help. To me, that’s the goal, not sitting around doing Who Struck John over 2002 hearings.

    Shit, I wouldn’t be surprised if this whole 2002 thing wasn’t ginned up by the GOP’s machine to disillusion Democrats. That’s their MO and they are very good at it.

    They don’t have to be good, they just have to pinch off one more vote for their guys than we get for ours. If the last seven years haven’t taught us that, then we aren’t ready for 2008.

  76. 76
    HyperIon says:

    This country is bellicose in nature, and we should stop pretending otherwise. The rest of the world knows it, and we deny it. The Democrats couldn’t have opposed the war machine in 2002 in any way shape or form without committing political suicide, because we, the voters, wouldn’t have had their backs.

    This is true. Regardless of whether or not a senator or representative can mention classified stuff on the floor of their respective chambers.

  77. 77
    jenniebee says:

    ThymeZone Says:

    Wow – there’s still a Constitution left to shit on – I totally did not see that coming.

    That is food-spit funny.

    No, it isn’t. It’s very, very sad.

  78. 78
    Dreggas says:

    Yglesias is saying the same thing Demi is regarding the speech and debate clause, there’s more on it at TPM

  79. 79
    ThymeZone says:

    Yglesias is saying the same thing Demi is regarding the speech and debate clause

    Yeah, but it’s irrelevant. It’s a technicality that, along with congress’ power to declare war, has just been sublimated and ignored. That doesn’t make it right, but it does make it a reality. And the other reality is, unless the people demand it, it won’t change. And so far that hasn’t happened.

    When the people want either of (a) representatives who will self immolate for principle and prevent the degradation of the separation of powers, or (b) representatives who will run for office on a platform that unambiguously calls for strength through rational foreign policy and diplomacy, and repeal of all real and imagined constraints on critical information under the banner of “classification,” they can elect such a government. They haven’t and show no signs of doing so in the immediate future.

    Retroactively bashing them 5 years after the fact for caving in under circumstances in which the whole country was drooling for muslim blood is just bloggorhea of the mouth, signifying nothing but noise for its own sake.

    You want more Gravels and Pauls? Elect them.

  80. 80
    Sojourner says:

    I hope we can elect some more Jim Webbs.

    Didn’t he vote for warrantless wiretapping? If so, no thanks.

  81. 81
    Tsulagi says:
    I hope we can elect some more Jim Webbs.

    Didn’t he vote for warrantless wiretapping?

    Yep, because Chertoff’s gut was rumbling.

  82. 82
    demimondian says:

    Oh, TZ, stop it with the irascible persona BS.

    I agree with you about five years ago — and I said so — but last I checked, I also mentioned the last twelve months. You know, the ones where the Gang of Four were under Democratic leadership? Yeah, that period of time.

    Or, in fact, the entire period since 2005, when they could have disclosed the documents in question?

  83. 83
    Cassidy says:

    Democrats allow dissent,

    [non-stop laughter at the joke]…..Wooooo! That was awesome. Almost spit my soda on the computer.

    is it is possible for someone else (read: The People) to give them a swift kick in the right direction

    I wouldn’t hold my breath. The American people, especially the Democratic voting blocs, don’t have a good track record for kicking anyone in the ass.

  84. 84
    Chris Johnson says:

    Where the hell were you with your pure anti-war, anti-torture positions in 2002? I was yelling to stop the war machine. I was yelling to stop it in the Gulf War. I don’t need any lecture about the desirability of a bellicose country, I’ve always been against it. But my problem is, I have been in a tiny minority that wasn’t even on the radar.

    Yeah seriously. Democrats are just as bad, huh? Does that mean I was CORRECT to vote for Nader? Because I don’t know but I’m thinking that wasn’t the right time for cynicism.

  85. 85
    Psycheout says:

    The sad fact is that Democrat politicians are liars. With the Republicans at least you know what you’re getting. They stand up for and speak out about their beliefs. Democrats pretend to stand for something to get support from the nutroots and then stab them in the back. Hilarious! LOL!

    If you want to get rid of Harry Reidtard, support Mark Noonan.

  86. 86

    Shit, I wouldn’t be surprised if this whole 2002 thing wasn’t ginned up by the GOP’s machine to disillusion Democrats. That’s their MO and they are very good at it.

    They don’t have to be good, they just have to pinch off one more vote for their guys than we get for ours. If the last seven years haven’t taught us that, then we aren’t ready for 2008.

    1998. That was when the Iraq regime change law passed. I swear, the way those morons keep bringing that up it was part of their long term plan.

    It’s amazing, for a group of people who plan political things years in advance, how utterly incompetent they are governing and simple things.

  87. 87
    Circe says:

    hopefully everyone on this post and their progressive mamas will vote in the primaries for Dennis the Liberal Menace! ther’s a start!

  88. 88
    jenniebee says:

    Wooooo! That was awesome. Almost spit my soda on the computer.

    Yes, because if Democrats allowed dissent, everybody would agree with you all the time. That’s what dissent means.

    /rolls eyes

  89. 89
    ThymeZone says:

    but last I checked, I also mentioned the last twelve months.

    Whatever, demidude. My position on this thread stems from this in the top post:

    privately they will be informed of possible acts of torture performed by our government, and they won’t say anything about it.

    … and specifically WRT to the recent news stories and weekend tv appearances which touched on this subject, to wit, “failure” of congress to stand up to torture descriptions back in 2002. Thereby fueling the faux outrage we see now on these and other blogpages. “Pelosi knew in 2002 and said nothing!” I plucked it right out of the headlines.

    That’s the basis for my position today, here. As for what’s happened since the 2006 election? I think I have covered that subject quite adequately heretofore, and I refer you to numerous posts I have already made on that subject.

    At the end of the posting day, it all comes down to one thing: Are we going to support the Democratic Party next year and get more seats, or are we going to sit around wishing that we had different representatives and end up voting for Ralph Nader and pissing away a great opportunity?

    I say, stop yer whining, get off your opera-loving behind and get out there and start putting in yard signs for Democrats as soon as possible. Same message I have been sending you for a year.

  90. 90

    […] Democrats Are Worse I’m glad that some on the left are finally figuring out what we’ve known all along. Democrats are far worse than Republicans. Since the voters put them back in power, the Democrats have taken impeachment off the table, punted on the war, never figured out a way to hold Republicans accountable for filibusters and obstructionism, so legislation is in the toilet, and never managed to use oversight power to do anything more than chip away around the edges of the Bush regime—though they have written a great number of Sternly Worded Letters. […]

  91. 91
    John S. says:

    Wooooo! That was awesome.

    Says the guy who thinks we’re going to see mass murdering sprees committed by knife-wielding maniacs and demolition-derby driving lunatics.

  92. 92
    Chad N. Freude says:

    The sad fact is that Democrat politicians are liars

    Another sad fact is that “Democrat” is a noun; the adjective that precedes “politicians” in that sentence should be “Democratic”. This little semantic trick to make it sound as though Democrats do not honor democracy or democratic principles is too ancient to get about without a walker and should be permanently retired, in favor of honest terminology.

    And since all Democratic politicians are liars, and Russ Feingold is a Democrat, it follows that Feingold is a liar. Therefore, you should be able to cite an example of Feingold lying. I haven’t found any; I eagerly await the proof of your premise.

    With the Republicans at least you know what you’re getting.

    There are numerous examples of this. Shall we start with George Bush?

    The two quoted sentences are moronic. Remember, Psyche: All sweeping generalizations are false.

  93. 93
    jcricket says:

    At the end of the posting day, it all comes down to one thing: Are we going to support the Democratic Party next year and get more seats, or are we going to sit around wishing that we had different representatives and end up voting for Ralph Nader and pissing away a great opportunity?

    I’m with you TZ. No amount of spite voting or bitching from the sidelines while not voting is going to fix the problem.

    The left needs to take a page from the religious right and realize “reforming” a political party into what you want is a multi-decade process. First you get them to agree to a little bit of your agenda, then you vote for them, then you hold their feet to the fire when they fail to live up to why you elected them. Oh, and work on changing the discourse too by pushing the media (do you think the reflexive “he-said/she-said” reporting style of the MSM is an accident? Nope, it’s the result of 30 years of antagonism from the right). You don’t go voting for the other side or a meaningless third party in the hopes your party will change. Never works in our system.

    I think the advantages the left would have if they adopted this “get a promise, elect, then fix” strategy are enormous. Demographics are on our side. Facts are on our side. International politics are on our side. But wishing for utopia is how Republicans continue to get elected.

  94. 94
    grumpy realist says:

    I think I’m about to nickname the Democratic Party “the Mensheviks.” They seem to be equivalently stupid.

  95. 95
    Psycheout says:

    Psyche: All sweeping generalizations are false.

    Irony alert!

  96. 96

    Way back in the thread someone said Pelosi out in ’09. Pelosi’s district in San Francisco is very small, and maybe the most liberal district in the country. An effective grassroots campaign could be run on the cheap there. If there is one Democratic politician in the district who is sick of her bullshit, you’d think that he or she’d stand up and say something, or maybe even run against her. You know, fruits and nuts. Haven’t heard anything about Cindy Sheehan lately, who isn’t much of a candidate but could actually give Pelosi a run in the primary. If only there were someone to show some moral fiber and take her on.

  97. 97
    Cassidy says:

    Wow!, John S., you managed to write a whole sentence without cursing or calling names because someone didn’t agree with you. I’m proud of you. You’ve really made some progress.

  98. 98
    demimondian says:

    Wow!, [sic] John S., you managed to write a whole sentence without cursing or calling names because someone didn’t agree with you. I’m proud of you. You’ve really made some progress.

    When snarking at other people, Cass, it helps to get your punctuation right.

  99. 99
    Psycheout says:

    And their handles, demidemon. You must be from the left coast, because there’s a whole lotta stench coming from your comments.

  100. 100
    t jasper parnell says:

    Although I know facts are confusing things:

    Thanks to the Speech and Debate Clause there was a way for any Senator or Representative who wanted to blow the whistle to do so in a way that involved no risk of jail or fines – at worst they might have lost their security clearances (and even there the law is a little murky).

    Article I, section 6 of the Constitution reads as follows,

    The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

    No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

  101. 101
    John S. says:

    You’ve really made some progress.

    If only you could show some fucking decency and not resort to namecalling, I’d consider that real progress, shithead.

    /cassidy

  102. 102
  103. 103

    […] * “So this NASA shuttle was just sitting there, when this spider came in and tried to eat it.”* “The Most Vulgar, Disgusting, and Foul Joke in the World.” But only if you’ve actually seen The Aristocrats. […]

  104. 104

    hey Other Steve
    I’ve got a real secure set of Democratic Party credentials. Real secure.

    I have the fortune to have 2 Democratic OR Senatorial candidates in a primary for Gordon Smith’s (R-OR) seat that I can get behind and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR). I have the bad luck to be in Rep Greg Walden’s (R-OR-02) District, and worse I’ve run for the privilege of running against him.

    Now I’ve also got the ear of a lot of fairly important Democrats in Oregon because I’ve demonstrated good political judgement, and I’m also pretty pissed off.

    The Democratic Congressional caucus has played this stupidly, as politics and that is never a help to your cause of increasing seats. If you want to stop over at my place and see my reasoning that’s fine, but I sure don’t need any lessons on supporting Democrats.

    Hell, I’d at least vote for Hillary against a Republican, if not at any other time. That really says more about Psych’s Party than Hillary.

  105. 105
    Mary McCurnin says:

    I made up and told that joke a year ago on Firedoglake. I want my hat tip please. :)

  106. 106
    marcki al canuckstani says:

    We, in the civilized world also have our share of filthy jokes. One that I’m thinking of had to do with greed, invasion , rape, murder, religiosity, superiority complexes, , hypocrisy, human rights abuses, war crimes, complacency and tacit complicity. I forget the gory details, there are so many,….but the punchline is A-murka,..BOOYAHHHHHHHH!!

  107. 107
    marcki al canuckstani says:

    We, in the civilized world also have our share of filthy jokes. One that I’m thinking of had to do with greed, invasion , rape, murder, religiosity, superiority complexes, , hypocrisy, human rights abuses, war crimes, complacency and tacit complicity. I forget the gory details, there are so many,….but the punchline is “A-MURKAH”.

  108. 108
    LaFajita says:

    Note to all regarding Cindy Sheehan:

    She is not running as a Democrat in the primary, she’s running as an Independent. This means that, like Banquo’s ghost, she will pursue Queen Nancy right up to the election. All CA-8 voters please note the (I) in front of Cindy’s name. That is not a party affiliation, but a big middle finger to a Democratic Party establishment that’s had it comin’. It is the same (I) in “Give me L(I)berty or give me Same/old Same/old!” The choice is yours.

  109. 109
    JOHN L. OPPERMAN says:

    I concede it MAY be prudent to keep a “secret” or two…”closed-door” hearings, but I can’t think of even one (troop movements?-who shouldn’t ever BE there).

    State secrets exist to prevent US from finding out politicians, military, corporate -and financial sector criminality, to cover their embarrassment and or criminal prosecution.

    No other reason.
    To hide facts from “our enemies’…the ones we created, who have long known them?
    I wait to be refuted on these comments…
    ~John L.

  110. 110
    Richard Rhodes says:

    It amazes me to see that there are so many assholes running around. The people who make comments on these websites are all so pathetic. It wouldn’t even be so bad if you morons had any clue what you were talking about on any topic. But sadly it does not take a whole lot to see how many stupid people there are in this country.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] * “So this NASA shuttle was just sitting there, when this spider came in and tried to eat it.”* “The Most Vulgar, Disgusting, and Foul Joke in the World.” But only if you’ve actually seen The Aristocrats. […]

  2. […] Democrats Are Worse I’m glad that some on the left are finally figuring out what we’ve known all along. Democrats are far worse than Republicans. Since the voters put them back in power, the Democrats have taken impeachment off the table, punted on the war, never figured out a way to hold Republicans accountable for filibusters and obstructionism, so legislation is in the toilet, and never managed to use oversight power to do anything more than chip away around the edges of the Bush regime—though they have written a great number of Sternly Worded Letters. […]

  3. […] The Aristocrats Democrats Filed under: Uncategorized — cleek @ 12:29 pm […]

  4. Sidelights says:

    The most disgusting joke in the world

    The most disgusting joke in the world…

Comments are closed.