Bring It On!

How Can We Miss the 2008 Mudslinging Campaign if it Won’t Go Away?

December 1st, 2008 | by Tom Harper |

George W. Bush’s excremental presidency has already contaminated and stained our government beyond all recognition. It’ll take at least four years (maybe decades) to clean up Boozo’s mess. And still he isn’t satisfied. So many more shitstains and pukestains to make; so little time.

Bush has already deleted enough environmental and worker safety regulations to bring us back to the early 1900s. But that’s not enough. Hey, Charles Dickens’ England wasn’t so bad now, was it? Those pitiful blokes didn’t go on about their pisspoor working conditions; they knew they were bloody lucky to have a job.

Corporate lobbyists (and their prostitutes in the government) who keep trying to get rid of workers’ safety laws — they’re sort of like chickenhawks in their own pathetic way. Chickenhawks sit in their armchairs, or at their computers, and go on and on about how “we” need to invade this country; “we” should send more armies into that country. “We” of course means somebody else.

Same thing with these sheltered lobbyists and government officials who think workers are too coddled and pampered with excessive safety regulations. “These regulations are too cumbersome. We don’t need this big meddling nanny state.” And the people who complain about these cumbersome safety laws have probably never gotten their hands dirty; never broken out in a sweat; never lifted anything heavier than a briefcase.

And speaking of chickenhawks — one of those obnoxious smelly critters is desperately clinging to his senate seat in Georgia. Saxby Chambliss is such a slippery lowlife, even the other chickenhawks are embarrassed by him. He greased his way into the Senate six years ago by assassinating the character of the incumbent, Max Cleland. Max Cleland is a triple amputee from his injuries during the Vietnam war.

Saxby “I’ve Got a Keyboard and I’m Not Afraid to Use It!” Chambliss ran a series of TV ads equating Max Cleland with Osama bin Laden. And Georgia’s voters fell for it hook line and sinker.

In his first re-election campaign this past November, Chambliss got less than 50% of the vote; so he’s being forced into a runoff election tomorrow. All the shining stars of the Republican Party are traveling to Georgia to campaign for him. McCain has already been there, and Sarah Palin is taking time out from her orgy of moose hunting and turkey-grinding to make a few appearances for him.

Chambliss is favored to win tomorrow’s runoff, but talk about a hollow victory. No matter how dense he might be, on some level he has to know what he really is. He got himself elected six years ago by kicking his opponent in the balls. And even if he wins tomorrow’s runoff, it’ll be with the help of all the rightwing VIPs barnstorming through Georgia, slamming his opponent and stirring up fears of a Democratic supermajority in the Senate if the chickenhawk loses.

Not that this has any bearing on anything, but Saxby Chambliss is one odd-looking creature. He looks sort of like a police artist sketch that hasn’t been completely filled in yet. No lips, no eyebrows, and no clear line where the hairline ends and the forehead begins. He looks kind of like those bad science-fiction/occult movies where a person starts fading away.

Maybe that’ll be an omen for his political career.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 7 Responses to “How Can We Miss the 2008 Mudslinging Campaign if it Won’t Go Away?”

  2. By Craig R. Harmon on Dec 2, 2008 | Reply

    For someone who claims to be pining for a mud-free future, you write like the king of the mud-slingers. Might I suggest that you practice what you preach before you throw stones through those glass walls of that there house of yours.

    Honestly, Tom, your irony meter must be on the fritz.

  3. By Tom Harper on Dec 2, 2008 | Reply

    A mud-free future — I like it :)

  4. By Craig R. Harmon on Dec 2, 2008 | Reply

    Every now and then one of my cylinders fires. ;-)

  5. By manapp99 on Dec 2, 2008 | Reply

    This is from the article you link:

    “The proposal applies to two agencies in the Labor Department, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Mine Safety and Health Administration. Under the proposal, they would have to publish “advance notice of proposed rule-making,” soliciting public comment on studies, scientific information and data to be used in drafting a new rule. In some cases, OSHA has done that, but it is not required to do so.

    The Bush administration and business groups said the rule would codify “best practices,” ensuring that health standards were based on the best available data and scientific information.

    Randel K. Johnson, a vice president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, said his group “unequivocally supports” the proposal because it would give the public a better opportunity to comment on the science and data used by the government.”

    So the proposal you think is going to make the work place less safe is to publish “advance notice of proposed rule-making,”.

    So how is requiring OSHA to post advance notice of rule changes a bad thing? OSHA should welcome input from all sources before making rule changes. How is more science and data a bad thing in making new rules?

    Why do you hate science and data?

  6. By manapp99 on Dec 2, 2008 | Reply

    Besides, now that the Dems have the keys to the kingdom, they have become the party of the rich and big business:

    “The two major political parties have been shifting their coalitions for a while now, as higher-income Americans move closer to the Democrats, despite the prospect of tax increases on high-wage earners. The Iraq war, which unsettled global markets, and the conservative social agenda combined to alienate many Wall Street executives from the Republican Party even before the recent financial meltdown.

    In the recent presidential campaign, the financial sector, long the biggest backer of the Republicans, actually gave more money to the Democrats, by roughly $65 million to $59 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.”


    “It’s a reasonable guess that the more that Republicans become aligned with lower-income voters, the quicker they will lose their fondness for tax cuts and that the more that Democrats enjoy the support of upper-income voters, the more likely they will be to abandon plans to soak the rich with tax hikes.

    Obama could end up resembling Ronald Reagan more than anyone could have imagined.”

  7. By Tom Harper on Dec 2, 2008 | Reply

    Manapp: Now all of a sudden a conservative is calling for “science and data” — LOL.

    The thing that really bugs me about Bush’s new proposed restrictions is the irony and contradiction. When it comes to allowing mining and logging in public lands, or getting rid of safety regulations, Bush always wants to “streamline the process,” i.e. get rid of regulations. When it comes to protecting workers’ safety, he wants to put out as many obstacles as he possibly can.

    I’m all for public comment periods, but conservatives are so skilled at forming phony grassroots “astroturf” groups, I can just picture thousands of industry lobbyists swarming all over the comment process, disguising themselves as “Joe Citizen” or a grassroots organization.

    As far as Democrats being the party of the rich and Big Business — no argument there. The only thing I like about Democratic politicians is that they’re not quite as bad as Republicans. I like Tweedledee better than Tweedledum.

  8. By Chris Radulich on Dec 2, 2008 | Reply

    They do the same with unions.There is never enough regulation for the republicans. However the republicans are very good a self delusion. The party of small government expect that is not their history. The party of fiscal responsibility except that is not their record. The party that wants government out of peoples face except that is not their history.

Post a Comment