March 7, 2013

Professional GOP pols to Paul: we were inclined to vote against Brennan, but because of you, we’ll now vote for him!

Evidently, how John McCain and Lindsey Graham — who must be common law spouses by now, mustn’t they? — choose to represent their constituencies is dependent on how they perceive the decorum of those ostensibly on their own ideological side.  Should they find said decorum unhelpful, for instance, those upstarts who have trespassed against the recent tradition of running the Senate on mostly bipartisan autopilot must be taught a lesson in perception — and if that means that Senators McCain and Graham must go ahead and vote for someone they claim to have felt previously was “shifty” and not really fit for the post, well, then so be it.

Decorum must be followed.  Collegiality maintained.  The ends justify the means.

And if these cocksucking teabaggers don’t learn that important lesson, all of us will suffer as a result.  And we’ll have only the presumptuous constitutionalists to blame, meddling as they seem always to do in the affairs of government, which need to be kept as far away from the people as is logistically possible.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 12:09pm
75 comments | Trackback

Comments (75)

  1. #StandWithRand is still the top-trending hashtag on Twitter.

    I mean, right now it’s at the top.

    Still.

  2. Their alleged No votes were only for the benefit of the rubes voters’ continued misperception of them as being members of an opposition party.

    Stupid Rand Paul has forced them to drop the mask to save a nomination that should have sailed through over their snickering pretense of being against it.

  3. They’re scared shitless.

    Now they’ll try to destroy him in earnest.

    I expect the effort to backfire.

  4. “Since you’ve demonstrated our discredit so thoroughly, we felt it’s only fair we prove you right by showing the utter frivolity of our votes!”

  5. I wonder if any of Jeff’s sources were at the big “bipartisan” dinner last night. I’d love to hear how Barry and his useful idiots talked about what was going on in the Senate.

  6. I would like to start an effort to cut off all Federal money to Arizona, including pulling out all Border Patrol, until they fucking retire John McCain.

    Enough.

  7. So they’re admitting that they’re so petty that they put punishing Paul’s impertinence ahead of a considered vote for the next head of the CIA. Good to know, guys, you’re completely failing your duties as Senators.

  8. Wyoming legislators killed a bill to protect Second Amendment rights because some of the people who wanted the bill passed were rude to them.

  9. “it’s become a referendum on the drone program” where a fascist pig food stamp president mows down american citizens in cold blood while coward mccain and his little dog lindsey cower under the table I think

  10. I wonder if any of Jeff’s sources were at the big “bipartisan” dinner last night.

    Obama is making this a continuing series not a one off event.

  11. More Whigging out. And they, with straight, solonic faces, call Paul’s actions “a stunt.”

    Pathetic.

  12. The standing of the McCains, Grahams, and other establishment Republicans, to say nothing of the bulk of the Democrats in the U.S. Senate isn’t so much a question of characterological pettiness (though to all appearances, there is that too), but the utter lack of an appearance of the function of the check on the Executive power, upon which the formal construct of the Constitution designed in order to preserve liberty, Libby. This was at the center of Paul’s strategic political purpose, I believe, no matter the particular issue upon which his purpose was launched.

  13. Huh?

  14. the Constitution *was* designed . . . apologies

  15. #StandWithRand is still the top-trending hashtag on Twitter.

    Don’t drone me, bro!

  16. J. Madison, The Federalist Papers 51:

    *** It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices. Were the executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the legislature in this particular, their independence in every other would be merely nominal. But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. ***

  17. The new Constitution has just one signature.

    And no verifiable check on power whatsoever.

  18. What constitutes “combat”? The right wing domestic terrorism of those who seek to limit the power of the federal government?

    I’d prefer we have some constitutional discussion here, not the assurance of a political hack and puppet.

    This may be good enough for Graham and McCain and the Powerline boys, but it doesn’t sit well with me.

  19. Or the question put to the progressive: “who is the enemy?”

    But just as with the progressive’s private determination to use the means of the Constitution to eliminate the Constitution, we’d surely get no more straightforward answer to this question either.

  20. Don’t drone me, bro!

    That one earned me a couple of retweets, despite that I couldn’t possibly have been the first to tweet it to that hashtag.

  21. Re-writing history for the lo-info crowd.

  22. Levin has made it clear he distinguishes drone strikes against Americans in other countries from ones in country, but I’m not so sure about it. His example is during WWII we bombed whole cities, without regard to any Americans there, but I find that a poor one, considering, well, we carpet bombed whole cities, and that was a declared war against a whole country. What we are talking about here is assassination. If we’re going to do that, why not start with political leaders like the Korean whack job, or the Iranian ones?

    What bothers me is the ambiguousness of the “war on terror”. I mean, say an American is sitting in a café in Yemen, and says within earshot of a CIA puke he wouldn’t feel too bad if the US capitol was turned into a crater . Does that mean he’s a terrorist and can be vaporized himself at the discretion of our CIC?

    Or maybe a known Al-Qaida Islamist falsely implicates some innocent ex-pat in a plot to bomb something. Is he fair game then, because he isn’t in the US?

    Seems to me, unless an individual is actually in the act of carrying out a deadly crime, a pre-emptive death sentence is wrong, no matter where his ass is parked.

  23. Shorter McLame/Grahamesty: “We have not yet begun to surrender!”

  24. Levin has made it clear he distinguishes drone strikes against Americans in other countries from ones in country, but I’m not so sure about it. His example is during WWII we bombed whole cities, without regard to any Americans there, but I find that a poor one, considering, well, we carpet bombed whole cities, and that was a declared war against a whole country. What we are talking about here is assassination. If we’re going to do that, why not start with political leaders like the Korean whack job, or the Iranian ones?

    Good questions.

    To begin with, we might ask ourselves what happens next, if say, Kim Jong Un is killed by a drone strike? Or Ayatollah Khamenei, for that matter?

    As to the particulars of killing nominal Americans in other countries, might we ask whether they are Americans in anything other than name, once they’ve taken up arms in war against America, assuming they have declared as much (as for instance regarding Al-Alwaki)? Granted no judicial decision was effected, so far as I know, in that instance, yet clarity on this issue isn’t really in doubt is it?

    On this score, I heard it suggested somewhere yesterday that in a fight in the Civil War times, a group of Union soldiers might come upon a group of Confederate soldiers in a woodland, and immediately fire upon their fellow citizens without benefit of an adjudication of the particulars. But, I thought to myself, isn’t this an extremely loose interpretation of the terms “fellow citizens”, insofar as the Confederate States had declared themselves — and thus do declare the soldiers fighting for the Confederate States — outside the citizenship of the United States? In other words, these Confederate soldiers would no properly be considered “fellow citizens” at the time, but citizens of a self-declared independent nation?

  25. I mean, say an American is sitting in a café in Yemen, and says within earshot of a CIA puke he wouldn’t feel too bad if the US capitol was turned into a crater . Does that mean he’s a terrorist and can be vaporized himself at the discretion of our CIC?

    Just take away his passport and leave him in the shithole he’s in.

  26. *not* properly . . . typo, sorry.

  27. Well, Lee, Levin also pointed out that there are procedures that need to be followed, and many agencies and leaders that have to sign off on such a strike. After which, Congress gets to review.

    I’m not sure that makes me feel all that much better, but it does show there is some oversight.

  28. Like I said, it just seems awfully ambiguous. If we’re to start resume executing traitors, why not here at home too?

    Just take away his passport and leave him in the shithole he’s in.

    Not to be a smart ass, but don’t Americans enjoy 1st amendment rights from our government, even when visiting abroad?

  29. so roobs is a big brennan fan?

    you would think endorsing capricious death from the skies would run counter to his extreme lifeydoodle philosophy

    but you know foolish consistency and et cetera

  30. Levin is retiring?

    that is welcome news

  31. Levin is retiring?

    Which one?

  32. carl

  33. here are the 13 Rs are on Team Brennan:

    Lamar Alexander
    Richard M. Burr
    Daniel Coats
    Tom Coburn
    Susan Collins
    Bob Corker
    Jeff Flake
    Lindsey Graham
    Orrin G. Hatch
    Mark Steven Kirk
    Meghan’s Coward Daddy
    Lisa Murkowski
    Marco Rubio

  34. *what* are on Team Brennan I mean

  35. Hmmmm, I wonder how Brennan flows on various Castro bros. questions?

  36. don’t Americans enjoy 1st amendment rights from our government, even when visiting abroad?

    Yes. That’s why we have Embassies all over the globe. They are supposed to be a sanctuary if you feel yourself in danger in a foreign country.

    That said, if higher ups make the decision that you are to be designated as an enemy combatant, you’re screwed. It doesn’t matter if you are in the US or abroad. You can be detained without counsel, indefinitely.

  37. That was preBengazi leigh.

  38. national cucumber sammich review

    The Rand Paul filibuster was great entertainment and will probably mark a new stage in his emergence as a national figure. We salute his brio, even if we suspect he is ultimately fighting a phantom menace.

    link

  39. Rand Paul runs Constitutional rings around John The Sneering Sufferer McCain.

    It really is kind of a pretty thing to hear.

  40. I guess you’re right, BMoe.

  41. -Thanks for the link, Jeff.

    -What’s up with Rubio and his ‘Yea’ vote? Even Granny Mitch voted against The Dhimmi.

  42. Wrote an Email to McCain today. Told him to retire as he appeared to be a bitter and angry old man who was shaming himself and his record in the USN.

    Explained how bad he was making himeself looked compared to the younger senators and why isn’t he helping them instead of attacking them.

    I wanted to use more “forceful” language but I don’t want a visit from those “men in black” (the real ones)

  43. Excellent comment at AoSHQ:

    “Rand’s [filibuster] just hurled a spear that marred the perfect cheek of God-King Obama.”

    - Heralder

  44. newrouter says March 7, 2013 at 4:01 pm

    You left an M out of his first name.

  45. SBP says March 7, 2013 at 6:18 pm

    Behold the god who bleeds!

  46. that marred the perfect cheek of God-King Obama.”

    the 1st of many cracks in the facade?

  47. Graham, in particular, seems to be extremely butt-hurt that this overshadowed his Dream Date with Teh Won.

    Sorry, Lindsey. Sometimes the Mystery Date is a Dud.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHsQpTbQ9Uo

  48. “McGehee, Scribe of Slog says March 7, 2013 at 6:39 pm
    Behold the god who bleeds!”

    Ooh! Nice Hawaii legend tie-in!

  49. “The Rand Paul filibuster was great entertainment and will probably mark a new stage in his emergence as a national figure. We salute his brio, even if we suspect he is ultimately fighting a phantom menace.”

    Buckley is no longer just spinning. Now he’s pinging off the walls of his grave like a pong dot in 1981 South Texas Pizza Hut..

  50. ot proggtardia world view

    Indeed, the validity of Huntington’s ideas with respect to ethnic con?ict has come into controversy, and we limit ourselves to showing the validity – at least partial – of this division for communication networks.

    “Come into controversy” seems like an understatement for Huntington’s thesis, which argued that future global conflicts would be fought along cultural and religious lines between a set of eight civilizations he defined. A Post writer once called it “the most dangerous idea of our time“; elsewhere, scholars like Edward Said and Noam Chomsky have gone to lengths to shoot it down.

    link

  51. Ooh! Nice Hawaii legend tie-in!

    Actually I was thinking Salish and Kirok.

  52. That was a horrible episode, McGehee. Almost as bad as the one with the space hippies.

  53. Link to THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS by Samuel P. Huntington.

  54. powerline boys nomaybeyes

    I’m not sold on Rand Paul, but mark your calendar: yesterday was a turning point. And it may have just elevated Rand Paul to the top tier of GOP candidates for 2016.

    link

  55. That was a horrible episode, McGehee.

    True, but that line stuck with me. I was in Catholic school at the time and the idea that a bleeding God was somehow illegitimate, surprised me.

  56. Ah, Steyn has a good example of the ambiguousness I mentioned…

    Is the government that investigated Miss Ibrahim and decided she was a fit person to meet the first lady and get a gong from the secretary of state the same government that investigates you and decides whether you need to be vaporized by a drone? Or is that an entirely different level of checks and balances?

  57. Actually, McGehee, I thought you were referring to Kipling’s “The Man Who Would Be King”. The downfall of the scheme was when Daniel Dravot was scratched / bitten by a woman and bled.

  58. It’s a multipurpose quote.

  59. Joseph Campbell or Sir James George Frazer could probably say learned things about the concept.

  60. And yeah, that wasn’t a great episode. I disagree that it was on the same level of badness as the space hippies, though, which in its own turn is outstunk by the horror that was Spock’s Brain.

    “Brain and brain! What is brain?”

  61. I thought at first I hadn’t seen that episode and then I read about it and realized it was the one where McCoy yelled at Spock for being a Vulcan and Scotty tried to warn them but they still fucked up the Warp Drive and used up all the dilithium crystals.

  62. they sure did have a lot of zany adventures

  63. star trek sat @ 9pm on metv

  64. Oh boy, Steyn has a new article up. The guy is all up in my head.

    I’ll try and capture the relevant bits, but it’s worth the effort to read the whole thing…

    Insofar as it relieves Washington of the need to think strategically about the nature of the enemy, the drone is part of the problem. But its technology is too convenient a gift for government to forswear at home. America takes an ever more expansive view of police power, and, while the notion of unmanned drones patrolling the heartland may seem absurd, lots of things that seemed absurd a mere 15 years ago are now a routine feature of life [...]

    Do you remember the way it was before the war on terror? Back in the Nineties, everyone was worried about militias and survivalists, who lived in what were invariably described as “compounds,” and not in the Kennedys-at-Hyannisport sense. And every so often one of these compound-dwellers would find himself besieged by a great tide of federal alphabet soup, agents from the DEA, ATF, FBI, and maybe even RRB. There was a guy called Randy Weaver who lost his wife, son, and dog to the guns of federal agents, was charged and acquitted in the murder of a deputy marshal, and wound up getting a multi-million-dollar settlement from the Department of Justice. Before he zipped his lips on grounds of self-incrimination, the man who wounded Weaver and killed his wife, an FBI agent called Lon Horiuchi, testified that he opened fire because he thought the Weavers were about to fire on a surveillance helicopter. When you consider the resources brought to bear against a nobody like Randy Weaver for no rational purpose, is it really so “far-fetched” to foresee the Department of Justice deploying drones to the Ruby Ridges and Wacos of the 2020s?

  65. rand paul stands up to the baracky on the public stage and some folks bitch about it.

  66. Power is limited by the degree to which an executive authority can enforce obedience. It is constrained by the extent to which authority can expect an order to be followed. It is bounded by the fear of political repercussions; by the dread of losing office and ultimately, but the apprehension that having lost office a person might face jail.

    Obama’s voters abolished the political consequences. They re-elected him and got what they voted for. President Obama’s unbridled accumulation of power is not the product of a legal failure. It is the consequence of a political failure. The Democratic and Republican parties have allowed a relatively small cabal of individuals of no particular moral stature to exercise unbridled authority over a great state. They been left free for years now to operate without a budget, to utter obvious lies and have Candy Crowley insist they are the truth, they have been permitted to scoff at the law — Fast and Furious comes to mind — and to proceed without even a cursory vetting. All in the pursuit of the partisan political promise of a permanent majority.

    He’s promised his supporters employment, free health care, peace on earth, nuclear disarmament, cradle to grave welfare and total transparency. They were offered a carrot and will nothing but a painted stick. Instead of Hope and Change there be get poverty, death panels, war, and package of ramen noodles for their troubles. Winston Churchill warned an earlier generation of political opportunists that the devil rarely keeps his bargain. “You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war.”

    link

  67. That is a good piece by Hernandez, but I think he is missing what seems increasingly obvious to me and that is the implications of Republican and Democrat executives being held to such radically different standards by the entrenched bureaucracies of State and Justice and the rest of them.

    If these hacks are willing to compromise the ability of Republicans to protect the nation in order to benefit the Democrat Party, then how can you say otherwise than their true loyalties are to the Party rather than the country?

    They are fucking traitors, plain and simple.

  68. them fancy CIA boys will throw they own mama under the bus to screw a Republican president over

    it’s how they roll when they not watching the gay porn and playing naked twister with each other

Leave a Reply