Archive for the 'Political theater' Category

Face it, guys. He’s just not that into you.

Published at April 28, 2008 in Political theater and Schadenfreudelicious. 15 Comments

Is that the sound of scales falling from eyes I hear?

Seems that a few of the Big Boi Bloggers who have wholeheartedly and uncritically embraced Barack Obama* are a wee bit upset that he appeared on Faux this Sunday and didn’t “take them on” as one of his advisers had told Greg Sargent he would, in order to silence the critics (on the blogs) who were taking him to task for appearing on the network and thus legitimizing it.

Sargent (all emphasis mine):

To be clear, Obama wasn’t obliged to go after Fox. But a senior adviser said Obama would, as a way of quieting criticism of him. And he didn’t.

This will likely further dismay liberal bloggers who had worked very hard to get Dems to boycott Fox as a way of deligitimizing the network and who already criticized Obama for agreeing to appear in the first place.

Obama turned in a perfectly solid performance. He probably succeeded in making a positive impression on many voters he might otherwise not have reached. But the broadcast was clearly a big victory for Fox and Chris Wallace, too.

Matt Stoller:

Greg Sargent’s blog post ‘Obama Doesn’t “Take Fox On,” After All’ kind of says it all. Obama is sucking up to Fox News, and beyond that, the campaign operative who said he would just out and out gave false information.

You can’t trust the Obama campaign, they will lie to you to promote right-wing institutions.

And later, in another diary:

It is very difficult to acknowledge that your candidate deals with you in bad faith, and so I understand the emotional inability of Obama’s most ardent supporters to realize that is what happened. I am an Obama supporter, but I don’t think he’s particularly trustworthy. The issue at hand is that Obama’s campaign simply gave out false information to Greg Sargent to placate bloggers. . . .

I think lost in all this nonsense is just how weakened we [Liberal blogs] have become in all this. When we accept lies from our leaders and openly dismissive knocks from them, it destroys our core argument that Democrats need to have integrity and to stand up for themselves. No they don’t. We don’t stand up for ourselves and we let them lie to us without consequence

Why should they listen to us when we ask them to do something we won’t do for ourselves? There’s probably no point in making this argument, but if I reach one person hopefully it will be useful. When you say that your voice doesn’t matter, it doesn’t. When you enable bad behavior, unethical behavior, it continues. I’m sorry, but the Iraq war happened for this reason. Silence.

If you don’t like that Obama steps on you, speak out. Clinton at least has a reason to step on us since many of us have openly called her a Republican. It’s a fight, and we didn’t back her. Instead we back someone that openly lies to us and thinks nothing of it. Worse still, there are no consequences, only criticism of people who are Obama backers but are frustrated at being lied to. I remember this situation during the Clark campaign, when I was attacked for speaking out about the campaign’s mistakes, until he lost a campaign run with ghoulish incompetence.

It was a mistake for us to endorse Obama, just as it was a mistake for us to do nothing against Clinton after she accused Moveon of intimating her supporters at caucuses. We should be stuffing ads discussing her Bosnia sniper fire in Indiana. But we don’t believe in standing up for ourselves.

So go ahead, accept the lies. It seems to be what we want from our leaders, and so I suppose it’s what we are going to continue to get.

Aw. He sounds so dejected to find out that Obama is, in fact, a politician. I could almost feel sorry for him. Except that he’s been one of the main contributors to the toxic environment on liberal blogs in the past few months, in which anyone who raises criticism of Obama gets shouted down, astroturfed, threatened, mocked, driven out. And you’ll note that even in his depressed and disillusioned state, he manages to get a few digs in at Clinton.

In an update, Stoller links to this post by Lambert at Correntewire which points out that during the interview, Obama specifically threw Daily Kos under the bus. Which shouldn’t be such a shock to these guys, since he’s done it before.

I admit, I’m having a schadenfreudelicious moment here. After having been pointedly and personally savaged for perceived support of Clinton just because I asked a few people to look at the rules they were insisting she was disregarding, let alone for pointing out that his rhetoric about choice and women’s autonomy makes me veryveryvery nervous, I have little sympathy for anyone who bought into the mass delusion that Obama was some kind of new politician (Everything you’d hoped for and more!  Going to bring Unity and Change and Hope to the electorate in some undefined way!) and who, in defense of their delusion bullied and intimidated anyone who criticized Obama (or asked to see his progressive bona fides or who simply didn’t vote for him (damn those racist Archie Bunkers who want to hear about issues! There’s Hope and Change to be had!)).

Still, I’m glad to see that some of these guys are beginning to come to their senses. Hear-no-evil, See-no-evil and Speak-no-evil is not the way to handle legitimate criticism of your candidate, nor is attacking anyone who dares to criticize as out of touch, old, a bitch, a racist, what have you. Candidates *must* be evaluated on their merits, and you can’t evaluate someone on their merits if any and all criticism is greeted with, “LALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU, YOU OLD BITTER RACIST BITCH!!!!

The next few weeks should be interesting. I’ve been suspecting that the longer the primary dragged on, the less able some of the Big Boiz would be to maintain their unqualified and uncritical support of Obama, particularly if he wasn’t winning all the time. No wonder they’ve been in such a rush to put an end to the primary.

Edited for atrocious grammar and run-on sentences.  _______

* Just to be clear: I’ve got no problem at all with people who support Obama. However, if they do so uncritically, and when asked for a reason why they support him, stammer something about hope and change and what a great progressive he is — and he promised a pony! — before launching into a diatribe about how awful Hillary Clinton is, then I reserve the right to mock their gullibility. As here.

Rules are rules

Published at April 24, 2008 in Political theater. 6 Comments

Ever since the end of January, when I had that lovely run-in with Scott and Rob at LGM over whether or not Hillary Clinton broke the rules when she asked that her pledged delegates seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan at the DNC this summer,* I’ve encountered a lot of people who insist, absolutely insist, that this or that action of Clinton’s, or this or that action of Florida or Michigan is in violation of The Rules and that therefore Clinton is evil and must be stopped and Florida and Michigan deserve the most severe penalty possible.

And ever since the end of January, I’ve been challenging people who make these arguments to find me one rule that Clinton has broken or wants changed in the middle of the process, or one rule that provides that last year’s decision to strip Florida and Michigan of 100% of their delegates is irrevocable.

Not one person has taken me up on this offer, even when I provide links to the rules themselves.  Sometimes, they start gibbering about the four-state pledge, but it’s obvious they haven’t actually read the pledge (otherwise they might realize that a) it’s not binding on the DNC, who select the delegates; b) the only effective promise any of the candidates who signed the pledge made was to do what they were already obligated to do under DNC Rule 20.C.1.b; and c) it was all a political stunt anyway (as was Obama’s and Edwards’ removal of their names from the Michigan ballot)).

This annoys me greatly, if for no other reason than that I am a pedant.  And I know very well that if you’re going to make a rules-based argument, the first thing you have to do is read the damn rules.  You can argue over their interpretation, or whether one action or another violates them, but when you have a set of controlling rules, those are the first and last stop on the argument train.

Just another way that the rabid, uncritical and vocal support of Obama (by some, not by all) is ruining my fun this election season.  I love arguing rules!  And nobody wants to play with me.  Any attempts I make to argue rules just get me dismissed as an Obama-hating Hillary-apologist.  By people with Ph.D.s, no less.  You’d think they might have a clue about argumentation and proof.

Anyway, this is a long and rambling way to say that I am very, very glad to see that someone is making an attempt to explain the rules in detail.  And I’m not just glad because it validates every. goddamn. thing. I’ve been arguing for the past few months.  I’m just happy to see someone else rules-lawyering.

Via Susie.

__________

* She didn’t.  See the rules.  Yet somehow, for asking that Scott, Rob and the rest of the motley crew over there actually consult the rules they claim were being flouted, I was compared to John Yoo and informed that I do not respect legal process.

What Barack Obama could learn from Mike Rowe

Published at April 12, 2008 in work work work and Political theater. 6 Comments

Gorgeous and fuzzy

No, not how to look good shirtless. How to talk to, and about, working-class (and specifically white working-class) people.

Because Obama’s really screwed the pooch on that.

Mike Rowe hosts a show on the Discovery Channel called Dirty Jobs, in which he “explore[s] the country, looking for people who aren’t afraid to get dirty.” He’s been doing this since 2003 — and by his own admission, never expected the show to get past the pilot stage — and has done nearly 175 jobs at this point.

What’s very interesting about the jobs featured is that they’re a combination of pure blue-collar and multi-degreed scientific/engineering jobs. And one of the things that keeps the show going is that Mike, even though he’s had “six years of college” as he mentioned in a segment on septic-tank technicians* in Wisconsin, and has been a singer in the chorus in the Baltimore Opera for a few years, he (almost) never looks down on the people he’s working with (with a few exceptions, which always make for the most uncomfortable segments, such as Ruby the brick stacker). Usually, he makes himself into the fool, even if he spouts Shelley while doing so. And he’s gotten a really good reception from working people, who are eager to use his show to highlight how hard and/or dirty their jobs are in a way that doesn’t overly valorize them but also doesn’t condescend to them.

In other words, treats them like people.

Enjoy the following clips. Continue reading ‘What Barack Obama could learn from Mike Rowe’

I’ve got it!

Published at April 3, 2008 in Political theater and Vanity. 20 Comments

I’ve been searching for a term that describes my position on the primary at present. Despite accusations to the contrary, I’m not a “Clinton supporter” or terribly “pro-Hillary.” Though I do like her, and certainly want her to keep fighting until the end (I also thought her Rocky reference was quite apt, because even though Rocky ultimately lost, he lost with dignity, and he lost after taking the fight to Apollo Creed on his own terms, instead of being a joke who was supposed to take a dive for the benefit of Creed’s show). I guess when you decide to counter the dominant narrative, you’re seen as pro-Clinton these days.

But I’m not really anti-Obama, either, though I don’t think much of a great deal of his supporters. Particularly when they’ve taken an easily-refutable position and react badly to the refutation (horrors! Obama’s actually a politician!).

I think the term I’ve been looking for is “Obama-skeptical.”

Because the mania with which his candidacy has been greeted since Edwards dropped out reminds me, a whole lot, of the U2 fandom which gripped my college roommate, Lisa.* I met Lisa in junior year, after we’d been assigned to the same room at room draw. It was 1988. The Joshua Tree had been out for a year, and that was their big breakthrough hit (personally, I was much more fond of The Unforgettable Fire and War, which I found less pretentious (yes, even “Sunday Bloody Sunday”), and I definitely remember seeing the posters for Boy and War in the DJ booth on WKRP, so it’s not like I didn’t know the band from way back).

Within the first few days of knowing Lisa, I was informed in great detail of her love for U2, how she had nearly been crushed to death during a concert in Philadelphia that summer after deciding to follow the band on tour without telling her parents because she and some friends had ambushed Larry Mullen, Jr. and Adam Clayton outside the Hartford Civic Center after a show, and Larry had kissed her cheek and signed her Gumby keychain.

In early October, Rattle and Hum came out. The only theater it was playing at in the area was in East Hartford, but Lisa had a car, and one night at dinner shortly after the movie came out, she and Holly, who lived down the hall and was also a big U2 fan, were talking about going to see the movie. To be clear: they were talking, in front of me, about the two of them going to see the movie, without asking me. But I liked U2 well enough, and had for a while, so I suggested that I might come along as well if they were going to make the trip out to East Hartford — particularly since I knew that particular movie theater well, much better than either Lisa or Holly, who hailed from a different part of the state.

Lisa looked at me for a little bit, then she said, very tightly, “All right. But you have to understand, this is a total fan movie. And I don’t want you to say anything wrong that would be against the movie, because it’s a fan movie, and you just don’t understand.”

And I looked at her, and I looked at Holly. Holly had the decency to look embarrassed, but it wasn’t her car. So I just said no, thank you, and stayed home.

Because she was right: I just don’t understand that kind of fervent and uncritical belief, the kind that would lead you to pick up and travel to Philadelphia to nearly die in a rush to the stage. I’ve had my little obsessions, don’t get me wrong (there was even a small Monkees obsession in high school, when MTV started playing old episodes; I even went so far as to leave school in the middle of the day (my mom was a sub, and so I just took her car from the faculty lot during my free period) to watch the episodes and look up old issues of Rolling Stone on microfilm in the public library). But I never actually lost my head with them to the point where I bored and perplexed my friends with my devotion.

More often than not, the Obama true believers remind me very much of Lisa and her U2 obsession (and, later, of my friend Melissa and her Robert Plant/Led Zeppelin obsession, but I’m afraid I introduced her to Led Zep).

It’s a fan movie, and I just don’t understand.

_________

* And yet, oddly enough, looking back, I can’t actually recall her playing any music in the room, much less U2.

Walking away

Published at March 23, 2008 in Political theater, Female trouble and Dipshittery. 12 Comments

I posted this video over at Feministe, without comment, under the title “Just a wife.”

I made the mistake of thinking that the readers of a feminist blog might be interested in some pretty egregious sexism, because that’s the kind of thing that feminist blog readers are supposed to care about, right? I mean, dismissing a two-term U.S. Senator as “Mamie Eisenhower” and dismissing the trips she made as First Lady as no more than your travel agent does and then snickering about it with Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson is just the sort of thing that most feminists get upset about when they see it happening, right?

But I forgot. It’s not a big deal when the person being dismissed is Hillary Clinton.  It’s the Clinton Rules.

Silly me.  I thought these were things we were supposed to care about no matter who is the target.  God knows I’ve found myself defending Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham from sexist bullshit, so I think my bona fides might have been established.

I can’t do this anymore.

What *I* don’t get

Published at March 19, 2008 in Race, Political theater and Revising reality. 10 Comments

Ann at Feministing reposts a question she asked over at TAPPED:

WHAT I DON’T GET.Why, after Geraldine Ferraro’s comments, didn’t Hillary Clinton stand up and deliver a speech on how she sees race in America?

Ok, ok, of course I understand why Obama was the one expected to offer a definitive statement on race. I just don’t like it very much.

People of color are not the only people who have a racial identity, and are not the only people who deal with issues of race in this country. Just like women are not the only ones who deal with issues of gender.

Just had to say that again.

Here’s what I don’t get: Why is it that every time Obama has to deal with criticism, or when he faces a potentially problematic issue, someone has to ask — demand, even — why Hillary isn’t doing something about it as well?

Ferraro’s comments are not the equivalent of Wright’s. For one thing, they hardly play equivalent roles with the respective campaigns; Ferraro is a Democratic party elder with no official campaign role who shot her mouth off to an obscure newspaper in California — surely, some comments on page D4 of a local shopper in Torrance, California are the perfect forum for dogwhistling to the racists in Pennsylvania! — and Wright has been Obama’s spiritual advisor for 20 years, supported by his presence in the church, his donations, his thanks (the title of The Audacity of Hope is from one of Wright’s sermons, and Wright was the only person Obama thanked by name during his 2004 keynote speech at the DNC) and his study (when Obama went off to Harvard Law, he took tapes of Wright’s sermons with him to study).

For another, Hillary publicly disagreed with Ferraro’s comments* soon after they were brought to light, and Ferraro stepped down. Obama has shifted positions on Wright, probably because he can’t afford to denounce the man himself, given his position and given how close the relationship has been. So he’s issued denials that he’s ever heard any such comments in 20 years, or issued denials about having heard the comments in the tapes that ABC has run. And then he’s walked back from those denials.

But more to the point of why Obama had to give a speech on race and Clinton didn’t: because Obama chose to make this speech about race. Which was an interesting choice, given the nature of some of the statements that Wright made that were controversial. The most politically problematic were, perhaps, the ones such as “God damn America.” But Wright also made specific attacks on Hillary Clinton and made it very clear that he didn’t think women had it so bad — white women at least — and yet other than a reference to the glass ceiling, Obama didn’t address these at all.

And Obama had to make this speech about race (and not about perceptions of anti-Americanism, or misogyny) because he’s chosen to run as a post-racial candidate, one who doesn’t make people have to think icky thoughts about race (even as his campaign and his supporters gleefully smeared the Clintons as racist, in many cases just making shit up out of whole cloth, persisting in doing so even after that shit had been debunked (why, hello, Kos, I’m looking at you)). And here, suddenly, was a reminder that he does have a racial identity.

In short, Obama had to make this speech because this is specifically Obama’s problem.

And what *I* don’t get is why Clinton has to fix Obama’s problems.

____________

*Comments that, incidentally, were not so very different from ones that Obama has made about himself.

Haven’t been posting much

Published at March 15, 2008 in Political theater and Female trouble. 19 Comments

Either here or at Feministe. To be honest, I’ve not really felt comfortable lately in the blogosphere, so I’ve been doing a lot of self-censoring. This primary has been hellish, and some formerly perfectly reasonable people have completely lost their shit. Every time I’ve done a post at Feministe about the election, someone accuses me — and it’s always an accusation, as if there were something wrong with it — of being a Clinton supporter. Sure, I’ve done a lot more posting about the misogyny of the press and of Obama supporters who seem to be absolutely gleeful that they can openly trash Clinton in gendered terms because she’s a power-hungry bitch standing in the way of their guy than I have about the accusations of racism against the Clinton camp (though I’m still trying to figure out how “fairy tale” and “kid” got to be racist terms). But when I posted back in early February that it was literally a coin toss between Clinton and Obama at that point, I meant it.

But since then, to be honest, the behavior of the press, of the Obamabots, of a lot of people in the blogosphere, of senior party officials and of the Obama campaign — not to mention Obama himself — has pushed me farther and farther away from him. It doesn’t help at all that there’s a clear double standard at work — where Clinton gets called on the carpet for things that *both* candidates, being politicians, do, but Obama gets a pass. And that whole mishegoss over at LGM over the Florida and Michigan primaries, where I got compared, in great detail, to John “Torture Memo” Yoo simply because I suggested that people who are going to make “rules are rules” arguments might want to take a look at the actual rules sometime.

I’m really beginning to be afraid that McCain might walk away with this one. One thing that keeps the patriarchy going is the failure of oppressed groups to work together. So as long as the narrative is Who Gets To Be First, The Black Guy or The Woman, the Rich White Guys get to keep themselves amused while the Democrats break themselves apart over increasingly bitter identity-based conflicts, real or the result of baiting.

And the best part is, if the Dem candidate loses in November, Hillary Clinton (and women) will get the blame for it. If she’s the nominee, it will have been because she “stole” the nomination with her race-baiting tactics, or because she’s the establishment candidate. Let’s just never mind the part where neither candidate at this point can get the required number of delegates to win outright, and that the superdelegates will be picking the nominee regardless. And that it’s entirely possible that she could win the popular vote even if he gets the greater number of delegates, and that the superdelegates might very well decide that the popular vote is more important than the delegate count.

And if she loses? Well, it will be because she just wasn’t likable enough, or she couldn’t get men to vote for her, or because she broke the party, or because she turned off voters with racist campaigning, or because the country’s just not ready for a female President. It *won’t* be because the liberal white dudes won’t vote for her because they don’t want to vote for a woman, or because the people who switched parties to vote for Obama in the primary don’t bother to vote in the general election since their guy’s not in it. Or because the press loathes her. Or because, god forbid, the people threatening to burn Denver to the ground if she gets nominated follow through.

If Obama gets nominated and fails to win in November, it will again be Clinton’s fault because she didn’t step aside and let him sail to an easy coronation, and so she poisoned the well. Or he’ll get Swiftboated — either by the Republicans, or by the press, who will discover that their true love is really John McCain — and she’ll get blamed for it because she questioned his experience during the primary.

Because that’s the way it works — you can blame anything on a woman. Especially if she’s Hillary Clinton.

Hmm, interesting twist

Published at September 4, 2007 in Political theater, Pantysniffing, Schadenfreudelicious and Anxious masculinity. 0 Comments

Larry Craig now says he just may not resign after all:

“It’s not such a foregone conclusion anymore, that the only thing he could do was resign,” Sidney Smith, Craig’s spokesman in Idaho’s capital, told The Associated Press.

“We’re still preparing as if Senator Craig will resign Sept. 30, but the outcome of the legal case in Minnesota and the ethics investigation will have an impact on whether we’re able to stay in the fight — and stay in the Senate,” Smith said.

Craig, a Republican who has represented Idaho in Congress for 27 years, announced Saturday that he intends to resign from the Senate on Sept. 30. But since then, he’s hired a prominent lawyer to investigate the possibility of reversing his plea, his spokesman said.

He probably should have hired a lawyer to begin with, rather than mailing in his plea deal and expecting everything to go away.

I’m actually pretty happy that he’s deciding to fight being pushed out of the Senate over this. Oh, don’t get me wrong — the schadenfreude of all these moralizing Republicans, particularly those who, like Craig, had plenty to say about Bill Clinton, getting caught up in one sex scandal after another is like Christmas in August. But hell, why should Craig be forced out for a sex scandal that hadn’t even yet involved any sex when David Vitter, whose name appeared on the DC Madam’s phone list, is encouraged to stay?

Well, except for the fact that Vitter’s replacement would be appointed by a Democratic governor, and he went to a female prostitute, we have an answer. Of sorts:

[Mitch] McConnell, R-Ky., disputed there was a double standard in how GOP leaders reacted to Craig’s case and to the admission in July by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., that his telephone number showed up in 1999, 2000 and 2001 phone bills of an escort service that federal authorities say was a prostitution ring.

In Vitter’s case, “there have been no charges made,” McConnell said, adding that the alleged wrongdoing occurred before Vitter was a senator.

Craig, by contrast, pleaded guilty to a crime, McConnell said. “The legal case was, in effect, over. At that point, the question was for the Republican leadership, what would be our reaction to it,” he said.

Ah, yes. Because it’s the filing of charges that makes all the difference!

vertdelayhcso.jpg

Okay, maybe not. Delay actually didn’t step down until it was obvious that he wasn’t going to win re-election. It wasn’t the corruption charges.

I don’t really know what the Senate rules are regarding service after being convicted of a crime, but I would imagine they’re loose enough that low-level misdemeanors such as disorderly conduct — which is what Craig pleaded to, and what five members of Congress were arrested for outside the Sudanese embassy — are gimmes. Vitter, if the story is to be believed, participated in a crime of a more serious sort, with all sorts of potential for coercion and economic disparity. Mark Foley preyed on Congressional pages, who are not only underage, but entrusted to the care of the Congress.

The more I’m reading about the Craig case, the more I’m convinced that the cop jumped the gun — while the signaling was well-known in certain circles, how can you possibly argue that the intent to have sex then and there in the stall was crystal clear? My understanding of the foot-tapping and hand-waving code is that it’s incredibly elaborate for a couple of reasons — one, because it resembles certain things one might innocently do in a stall (tap one’s toes, wave a hand underneath a stall to get paper, checking for occupancy), it doesn’t necessarily draw attention to itself. And two, if the overture is made and either no signals or the wrong signals come through, then it’s clear that the other guy isn’t into it, and you move on. This will save you a beating. The whole point, then, is to prevent unwilling straight guys from even realizing they’re being cruised:

That said, what results! In minute, choreographic detail, Mr. Humphreys (who died in 1988) illustrated that various signals — the foot tapping, the hand waving and the body positioning — are all parts of a delicate ritual of call and answer, an elaborate series of codes that require the proper response for the initiator to continue. Put simply, a straight man would be left alone after that first tap or cough or look went unanswered.

Why? The initiator does not want to be beaten up or arrested or chased by teenagers, so he engages in safeguards to ensure that any physical advance will be reciprocated. As Mr. Humphreys put it, “because of cautions built into the strategies of these encounters, no man need fear being molested in such facilities.”

Mr. Humphreys’s aim was not just academic: he was trying to illustrate to the public and the police that straight men would not be harassed in these bathrooms. His findings would seem to suggest the implausibility not only of Senator Craig’s denial — that it was all a misunderstanding — but also of the policeman’s assertion that he was a passive participant. If the code was being followed, it is likely that both men would have to have been acting consciously for the signals to continue.

But a lot of guys seem to think that the toe-tapping is lewd in and of itself, and an actionable sexual assault and far worse than any kind of harassment a woman has to put up with on the street and deal with despite the absence of undercover cops waiting to bust catcallers and frotteurs. Certainly a few self-described liberal guys on the threads here, here and here thought so (and many more disbelieved the stories the women on the threads were telling about being harassed, demanding proof).

I would imagine this kind of butt-clenching terror that a gay guy might hit on you is one of the forces driving the GOP parade of outrage over this.

Mind you, what would be really refreshing would be if Craig started taking a look at the kind of discrimination, legislation and morals policing that drives a lot of men, men like Larry Craig, to seek anonymous sex in public restrooms, instead of living out and proud in their communities and loving whom they wish.

But I won’t hold my breath.

Another rat leaves the sinking ship

Published at August 31, 2007 in Political theater. 0 Comments

Tony Snow resigns.

Can it really be true?

Published at August 27, 2007 in Lousy hypocrites, Political theater, Crime and Schadenfreudelicious. 5 Comments

Is Alberto Gonzalez really going to resign today?

I’ll believe it when I see it.

And in the meantime, I’ll start fretting about which GOP hack they’re going to pick to replace him, and how much of a tongue bath the Dems in the Senate will give the guy.