Wednesday, July 05, 2006




I'm pretty sure that he no longer stands a chance of getting the nomination, but

I would vote for Mussolini before I would vote for Evan Bayh.



Bayh, who voted for an amendment to the Constitution to restrict flag-burning, is now the JesuAntiChrist. An ickypoo kinda guy.


Eff him...

42 Comments:

Anonymous Jestaplero said...

Wait - the flag-burning amendment fiasco is a Republican initiative. A gratuitous, election-year ploy by the GOP to put Dems like Bayh in a tight squeeze.

I'm not happy he caved, either (although it never had a chance to pass), but he's a Democrat - why do you single him out for abuse?

Wednesday, July 05, 2006 6:38:00 pm  
Anonymous loopner said...

But he has such a sunny smile, don't you think? Actually . . . as I look closer, I believe -- why, yes -- I think I see . . . that his incisors look a wee bit pronounced -- one might even say "vampirish" . . .

Hhhhheeeeeeeee . . .

Wednesday, July 05, 2006 8:56:00 pm  
Anonymous cletus said...

He's puuuurty.

Wednesday, July 05, 2006 9:18:00 pm  
Blogger bigglesby said...

:: (although it never had a chance to pass) ::

I think any Consitutional amendment that gets within ONE VOTE of passge, for consideration by the states, falls out side the category "never had a chance to pass."

I single him out because he voted for the amendment, to answer your question.

Thursday, July 06, 2006 7:52:00 am  
Blogger bigglesby said...

Akaka, D-Hawaii
Bennett, R-Utah
Biden, D-Delaware
Bingaman, D-New Mexico
Boxer, D-California
Byrd, D-West Virginia
Cantwell, D-Washington
Carper, D-Delaware
Chafee, R-Rhode Island
Clinton, D-New York
Conrad, D-North Dakota
Dodd, D-Connecticut
Dorgan, D-North Dakota
Durbin, D-Illinois
Feingold, D-Wisconsin
Harkin, D-Iowa
Inouye, D-Hawaii
Jeffords, I-Vermont
Kennedy, D-Massachusetts
Kerry, D-Massachusetts
Kohl, D-Wisconsin
Lautenberg, D-New Jersey
Leahy, D-Vermont
Levin, D-Michigan
Lieberman, D-Connecticut
McConnell, R-Kentucky
Mikulski, D-Maryland
Murray, D-Washington
Obama, D-Illinois
Pryor, D-Arkansas
Reed, D-Rhode Island
Sarbanes, D-Maryland
Schumer, D-New York
Wyden, D-Oregon




opponents

Thursday, July 06, 2006 7:52:00 am  
Anonymous Jestaplero said...

I single him out because he voted for the amendment, to answer your question.

Well, it doesn't, of course! If Bayh is the Anti-Christ, what does that make the bill's sponsor, Orrin Hatch, or majority leader Bill Frist? These are the cynical douchebags behind the whole scheme. These are the fuckwads gaming the constitution for naked political expediency.

Thursday, July 06, 2006 9:16:00 am  
Anonymous dieter, who loves skeeter said...

I disagree with your implicit premise that my function is not to excoriate Bayh, but to perform a survey of all participants in the transaction, assess their relative positions, make comparisons, rank or order their culpability, and issue some comparative essay on their evils.

I would vote for Mussolini before I would vote for Bayh.


And I like my steaks well-done, and not medium-rare.

Now, you bring me to another point -- motivations. Getting inside someone else's head is impossible. But it's also something we all like to do, and I'm no different from you. But I like to give folks a break around the edges, too, so I respond only to what I find to be obvious naked political expediency. This issue, while easy for me, is just as easy for other on the other side -- others not engaged in political expediency. And as we know, flag-desecration doesn't evoke predictable responses; in the 1989 Texas case, Justice Stevens found no First Amendment protection, while Justice Scalia found it. There are Lots and LOts of people who favour the amendment who couldn't understand the phrase "political expediency," much less engage in it. SO I will ascribe cynical douchebagger and fuckwadded naked political expediency in this to Bill Frist, the most ham-handed, obvious jackass I've yet seen to emerge on the national stage. And one with dead shark's eyes. Doll's eyes. . .

I haven't yet considered Hatch; if you have something to easily demonstrate naked political expediency and cyncial douchebaggery, please share.

I also was very disappointed with Arlen Specter. If it makes you feel better, I can swear that I will vote for Mussolini before I will vote for Arlen Specter. Not for cynical political nudity, but because he said dumb, indefensible legal bullshit in analogizing flag-desecration with content-less speech. If he believes what he says, that makes him less-than-cynical, but stupid. Which I don't really believe; I think the guy is pretty smart. So I'll chalk that up to pig-eyed-sack-of-shit lying, if not demagoguery and cynical douchebaggery of a nakedly policitically expedient sort.

And Evan Bayh can kiss my ass.

Wait; I see that you asked a question, and I should respond:

If Bayh is the Anti-Christ, what does that make the bill's sponsor, Orrin Hatch, or majority leader Bill Frist?

It makes Hatch the bill's sponsor, and Frist the majority leader?

Thursday, July 06, 2006 10:03:00 am  
Blogger 'Alf A Bee said...

I will be here all ze week . . .

Thursday, July 06, 2006 3:44:00 pm  
Anonymous Jestaplero said...

I would vote for Mussolini before I would vote for Bayh.

Actually, I don't think you would, and if you did, it would make absolutely no sense, based on your own political values and philosophies, as expressed here.

The same way it doesn't make much sense for you to single out for excoriation a reluctant supporter of a bill you don't like, rather than the people actually responsible for its very inception.

Thursday, July 06, 2006 7:02:00 pm  
Anonymous supercalifra said...

Trust me -- I will vote for Mussolini before I'll vote for Bayh. Or I'll vote for Jeb Bush, and Tit Romney.

it doesn't make much sense for you to single out for excoriation a reluctant supporter of a bill you don't like, rather than the people actually responsible for its very inception.

There won't ever be logic from me on this thing, because i don't even sit down to type whatever babble comes from my brain, through my fingertips, to the ether. This presumes I could identify and articulate my premises, which I sincerely doubt.

But i disagree with you. Each of the senators has particular demands on him, and a particular safe zone, and a particular constituency. Each has an obligation to fight certain battles, to let certain battles go, and each has a differing latitude and a differing cover to support or oppose positions and issues.

And a reluctant voter who knows better does differ from a committed, but wrong, voter.

It's possible, and warranted, to distinguish each of the voters for, and to distinguish each of the voters against.

Because the inferences I draw about motives, and about convictions, are unprovable, but quite strongly felt.

I'd vote for Dan Quayle before I'd vote for Evan Bayh...

Thursday, July 06, 2006 8:33:00 pm  
Anonymous supercalifra said...

by the way, tytpus was the verification code for my last post . . .

Thursday, July 06, 2006 8:34:00 pm  
Anonymous dubsterricious said...

When I wrote There won't ever be logic from me on this thing, by "this thing" I meant "the computer," or "the blog." Not "this issue" -- I don't sit still for any of this.

Thursday, July 06, 2006 8:36:00 pm  
Anonymous Jestaplero said...

I'm sure you're aware of the What's the Matter with Kansas? theory, which is that the modern-day GOP uses silly, insubstantial "culture" wedge issues like flag-burning to successfully persuade people to vote against their own interests.

By your own words, here, some of your most passionately-held beliefs are a strong Bill of Rights and a non-instrusive federal government.

The current gov't is possibly the most hostile to the Constitution, the most arrogantly peremptory and unresponsive in modern US history.

Yet you would vote for Jeb Bush - who couldn't possibly be more closely aligned to the current administration - over the imperfect, but overall much more moderate and reasonable Evan Bayh.

So, although you get there by a somewhat more twisted route...

You would allow this idiotic flag-burning wedge issue to persuade you to vote against your interests.

I guess this whole Kansas strategy really works!

Thursday, July 06, 2006 9:36:00 pm  
Anonymous Juvenile Buffoon said...

Each of the senators has particular demands on him, and a particular safe zone, and a particular constituency. Each has an obligation to fight certain battles, to let certain battles go, and each has a differing latitude and a differing cover to support or oppose positions and issues.

Precisely! As a blogger recently put it:

"Indiana voters support a flag burning ban across the board. Republicans have murdered Dems like Bayh repeatedly in the past through these silly symbolic, cultural "policy" votes. If you're Bayh and you vote against this thing, you spend the next six months dealing with crazy Indiana GOPers ranting about how you lost your Hoosier values. You vote for, and you live to fight another day, and you can spend the next six months talking about how bush has screwed up and how we can make a change."

So who comes out looking better in this deal? The political extortionists, or the victims of the extortion?

Thursday, July 06, 2006 11:41:00 pm  
Anonymous Chutney said...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
--Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

Who's going to tell us what a civil right is and what's not? Well, the people will.
--Massachusetts Governor, Harvard Law School graduate (and Christian), Mitt Romney, June 28, 2006

Friday, July 07, 2006 12:01:00 am  
Anonymous you know said...

Massachusetts Governor, Harvard Law School graduate (and Christian), Mitt Romney, June 28, 2006

ARe LDS dudes [you know, "Mormons"] Christians?

This whole religion thing confuses me...


And for the JuvBuf - I could write some pithy "If Evan Bayh can't take on the GOPers in his own state, and move them, then he's ill-equipped to move anyone as the nominee of his party, as the PresCand, or as Pres." or some other trite blather, but that wouldn't do much to actually express my response to mr. bayh.

The Kansas strategy does work, of course; voting isn't choosing from a menu for the attributes you want, but assessing the character and choices of the candidates.

Friday, July 07, 2006 6:21:00 am  
Anonymous Jestaplero said...

Ah. Thanks for the clarification.

I only have one remaining question:

The flag-burning amendment fiasco is a Republican initiative. A gratuitous, election-year ploy by the GOP to put Dems like Bayh in a tight squeeze.

I'm not happy he caved, either (although it never had a chance to pass), but he's a Democrat - why do you single him out for abuse?

Friday, July 07, 2006 8:26:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No abuse involved at all -- I merely stated that, although I assume he can no longer get his party's nomination, were he nominated, i would not vote for him.

Why have I reached that conclusion? Why, because he voted for the amendment.


as someone pointed out earlier, If Evan Bayh can't take on the GOPers in his own state, and move them, then he's ill-equipped to move anyone as the nominee of his party, as the PresCand, or as Pres. He determined he wouldn;t try.

Or perhaps he agrees with the amendment, and cravenly hoped he would not have to cast a vote. Perhaps he wasn't squeezed at all, just woshes he hadn't had to vote on it...


Of course, there are people who voted against the amendment who, if nominated, would also send me running to Mussolini...

Friday, July 07, 2006 11:27:00 am  
Anonymous Jestaplero said...

No abuse involved at all

Being called the Anti-Christ and compared (unfavorably) to Mussolini isn't abuse?

I merely stated that, although I assume he can no longer get his party's nomination, were he nominated, i would not vote for him.

No, you did not "merely" state the above. You 1) added the rather extreme criticism (above), 2) chose to attack Bayh instead of the bill's sponsors, 3) indicated you would reward the bill's sponsors by favoring their cohorts (J. Bush and Romney) with your vote.

If Evan Bayh can't take on the GOPers in his own state, and move them, then he's ill-equipped to move anyone as the nominee of his party, as the PresCand, or as Pres.

Not that any of that would have spared him your ire. You don't like RFK or MLK, either.

Well, this has been a thoroughly despressing exchange! Truly, there seems to be no reason for the GOP to not make such craven, politically-contrived attacks on our Constitution - Democrats will be screwed no matter what they do:

1) if they oppose, they will be bludgeoned as America-hating elites;

2) If they vote for the bill (even under somewhat understandable circumastances), they will alienate not only the left, but even politically savvy libertarians such as yourself.

Sunday, July 09, 2006 10:55:00 pm  
Anonymous Chutney said...

I disagree with your implicit premise that my function is not to excoriate Bayh, but to perform a survey of all participants in the transaction, assess their relative positions, make comparisons, rank or order their culpability, and issue some comparative essay on their evils.

Gee, it sounds complicated when you put it that way. You already issued an essay...as for the rest, I remember when that used to be called "being reasonable"!

Monday, July 10, 2006 8:58:00 am  
Anonymous dubstalero said...

I don't like Morris L. Knutson?

Monday, July 10, 2006 9:04:00 am  
Anonymous Loans from DiTech said...

Gee, it sounds complicated when you put it that way. You already issued an essay...as for the rest, I remember when that used to be called "being reasonable"!

I reject the implicit, nearly explicit premise that I'm supposed to be reasonable here.

I'm clearly not engaged in incisive, insightful political analysis here; it's largely masturbatory reactions to the world, much like I get psyssed for Dana Delaney or Liz Phair, but can't get a boner for the Asian woman.

But, as long as we're sorta talking politics, I'll put together my "rogue's list," and I'll post it. Bayh will not be on it, although I will vote for Mussolini or Jeb Bush and Tot Romney before I'll vote for Bayh. And my rogue's list will include Frist, but not Pat Buchanan, and will not include Joe Lieberman but will include Al Gore. Even though I think that Joe Lieberman is a horses' ass, not for his Iraq stance, but his public morality stance. Which is probably an admirable one.

And I will probably dislike Justice Thomas and his cohort Justice Stevens.

Well, this has been a thoroughly despressing exchange! Truly, there seems to be no reason for the GOP to not make such craven, politically-contrived attacks on our Constitution - Democrats will be screwed no matter what they do:

1) if they oppose, they will be bludgeoned as America-hating elites;

2) If they vote for the bill (even under somewhat understandable circumastances), they will alienate not only the left, but even politically savvy libertarians such as yourself.


I don't see any reason they shouldn't, either, when you put it like that.

I said nothing about the Republicans winning my vote, of course. Unless the Democrats somehow nominated Evan Bayh, in which case I have said that Mussolini, Jeb Bush, or Chesty Romney has won my vote.

You already issued an essay

Well, not in my book; I ejaculated: I'm pretty sure that he no longer stands a chance of getting the nomination, but
I would vote for Mussolini before I would vote for Evan Bayh.
Bayh, who voted for an amendment to the Constitution to restrict flag-burning, is now the JesuAntiChrist. An ickypoo kinda guy.
Eff him...


While we're at it, eff J.C. Watts.
He proposed using federal law to enforce some state police matters.

I oppose that too.

Monday, July 10, 2006 9:23:00 am  
Anonymous Mister Parker said...

I had a thought, late though it may be.

Isn't it possible that Bayh's vote was not his own craven strategy for winning re-election but the strategy of the Democratic leadership for recapturing the Senate in November? They go to Bayh and say, "Dude, we have 34 rock-solid votes against the Flag Burning Amendment. We want you to vote FOR the amendment to take this issue off your opponent's plate. Then once we get control of the Senate, we won't be voting on this stupid amendment at all."

I'm not saying that's what happened here, but the Senate's history is filled with examples of just such vote trading for political purposes that had nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Besides, I have to go with jestaplero, that it's better to compromise now and win the war later than in the name of ideological purity sacrifice a body in a battle that's already been won and lose the war.

I mean, don't get all Stalingrad on us. Don't go O'Melveny.

Monday, July 10, 2006 4:35:00 pm  
Anonymous Mister Parker said...

In fact, I'll go further than that. Politicians being what they are, I wouldn't be completely surprised if the Republican leadership went to McConnell, Chafee and Bennett and said "Hey, we're in danger of getting 67 votes in favor of the Flag Burning Amendment. If it actually passes, that's one less issue to raise money on come November. Your Senate seats are safe -- vote against it and then we'll say we tried and only those commie liberal dupe Democrats thwarted us."

Monday, July 10, 2006 4:46:00 pm  
Anonymous Mister Parker said...

As the Washington Post made clear on a page 2 article the day after the vote, the Flag Burning debate was political theater of the emptiest kind. Even 19 of its staunchest supporters admitted it wasn't important to the country and couldn't waste time with either the Post or on the Senate floor speaking in its favor.

It's kabuki theater, my friend. Don't be fooled by the forms.

Monday, July 10, 2006 4:50:00 pm  
Blogger Dubster said...

McConnell has been unabashed in his opposition to it since 1990; he's sort of gung ho on the First Amendment, and doesn't want to tamper with it.

I always learn something from my most casual docket entries. One in which I described someone as an ickypoo kinda guy got some fevered, heated, thoughtful, demanding posts.

now mister parker, you don't actually think they sit in back rooms and talk and think that way, now do you?

How cynical of you!

I can explain my post with the phrase "man bites dog"

Monday, July 10, 2006 5:09:00 pm  
Blogger Dubster said...

Isn't it possible that Bayh's vote was not his own craven strategy for winning re-election but the strategy of the Democratic leadership for recapturing the Senate in November?

I'm not sure why anyone would assume that Bayh voted that way as a craven strategy to win reelection...

Monday, July 10, 2006 5:10:00 pm  
Blogger Dubster said...

Did I mention I never got over being in love with Sue?

Monday, July 10, 2006 5:11:00 pm  
Anonymous Jestaplero said...

"Dude, we have 34 rock-solid votes against the Flag Burning Amendment. We want you to vote FOR the amendment to take this issue off your opponent's plate.

Jesus, Parker, what took you so long to show up?

Anyway, the same thought occurred to me but I was too lazy to post it: in response to Dubster's "it came within one vote" comment, I was surprised to learn it was that close, then figured it probably wasn't actually that close, but once the D's figured they had the math, they started letting red-state D's like Bayh switch their vote.

"Hey, we're in danger of getting 67 votes in favor of the Flag Burning Amendment. If it actually passes, that's one less issue to raise money on

And that's why Roberts and Alito won't overturn Casey. Dude, what, did you go out of town or something this weekend? Can't you take a laptop with you next time?

Monday, July 10, 2006 11:55:00 pm  
Anonymous Chutney said...

Are LDS dudes [you know, "Mormons"] Christians?

You mean the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? Are they Christians? I dunno, let me think on that a spell, and I'll get back to ya...

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 12:07:00 am  
Anonymous Jestaplero said...

I'm not sure why anyone would assume that Bayh voted that way as a craven strategy to win reelection...

Sorry, just checking...have I mentioned that the flag-burning bill was a Republican initiative?

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 12:10:00 am  
Anonymous Deeeeeeter said...

Let me get this straight -- you guys are saying that you think politicians, professional politicians, our elected representatives, would vote for or against something on the basis of a deal, rather than on the merits of the proposal?

Are you on crack??

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 7:33:00 am  
Anonymous dieter, who loves skeeter said...

::I'm not sure why anyone would assume that Bayh voted that way as a craven strategy to win reelection... ::

Sorry, just checking...have I mentioned that the flag-burning bill was a Republican initiative?


On this, I'm not intentionally trying to be obtuse, but I don't follow. I wasn't suggesting that he sponsored the bill, I was just suggesting that one shouldn't assume his vote was some sort of "gulp, I HATE this and disagree to my firmament, but I must vote otherwise to preserve my seat" kinda thing.

Unless he announced that. Did he announce that it was a craven strategy to win reelection, when I wasn't looking?

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 7:36:00 am  
Anonymous Mister Parker said...

Do politicians do this sort of thing? I seem to recall in Robert Caro's book about Lyndon Johnson's Senate years there was some famous parlimentary maneuver that ended with opponents of a civil rights measure voting for it and supporters of the same measure voting against it. Something bizzare like that. But it's a long book, I read it four or five years ago and it's downstairs. The next time I go downstairs to fill my coffee cup I'll see if I can find the episode ...

It's one of the reasons, by the way, that no sitting Senator since John F. Kennedy has been elected president of the United States. Too many votes they end up explaining as "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 8:23:00 am  
Anonymous Mister Parker said...

Apropos of nothing, I merely note that Evan Bayh's Flag Burning vote has inspired 34 comments while the photo of the cat and the broad in the corset has inspired none.

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 9:45:00 am  
Anonymous Jestaplero said...

Thirty-five.

you think politicians...would vote for or against something on the basis of a deal

Actually, what I have read is that Bayh has always said he would vote for the amendment, that it was his explicit campaign promise to his constituents, who overwhelmingly favor it. I have not been able to discern his personal views on the matter.

So, ultimately, he voted for it because the people he represents demanded it. Since that's his job, I don't have a big problem with that.

And, if the amendment had passed by one vote, with Bayh refusing to switch, I would blame Orrin Hatch and the other Senate GOP leaders who pushed for its proposal. An amendment can't be voted on if it is not proposed in the first place.

Gee, it's too bad the GOP proposal to protect the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance was a nonstarter, imagine all the scorn we could have heaped on the Democrats for that one.

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 10:04:00 am  
Anonymous dieter said...

I seem to recall in Robert Caro's book about Lyndon Johnson's Senate years there was some famous parlimentary maneuver that ended with opponents of a civil rights measure voting for it and supporters of the same measure voting against it.

I don't remember the incident from Caro's senate years book, but I do remember the floor of the convention in Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 when McGovern's people kicked ass in just such a manner. . . it moved me.

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 11:37:00 am  
Anonymous dietre said...

Gee, it's too bad the GOP proposal to protect the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance was a nonstarter, imagine all the scorn we could have heaped on the Democrats for that one.

There hasn't been any scorn heaped on the Democrats yet; why would it start now?

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 11:40:00 am  
Anonymous detritus said...

loopner said...
But he has such a sunny smile, don't you think? Actually . . . as I look closer, I believe -- why, yes -- I think I see . . . that his incisors look a wee bit pronounced -- one might even say "vampirish" . . .

Hhhhheeeeeeeee . . .

Wednesday, July 05, 2006 8:56:11 PM
cletus said...
He's puuuurty.

Wednesday, July 05, 2006 9:18:54 PM


I'm not sure who "Chutney" was, so these are the only known comments not attributable to the three douchenozzles still in here. . .

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 11:48:00 am  
Anonymous detricious said...

Man bites dog, baby; man bites dog...

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 11:49:00 am  
Anonymous Jestaplero said...

So if it's McCain v. Clinton in 2008, you're voting for Hillary, right?

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 10:40:00 pm  
Anonymous dieter, who loves skeeter said...

Accch - whatta choice! A sponsor of McCain-Feingold, which offends me more than the flag-burning amendment, and a supporter of McCain-Feingold.

I find it hard to imagine voting for either, but between the two, there's no question which way I'd vote. But if those are the nominees, the Libertarian Party candidate will have to stand on her head with a kazoo in her twat to keep me from voting for her.

Of course, that would be a strong reason to vote for the Libertarian Party candidate, unless she did it hand-standing on a flag. . .

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 8:03:00 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home