For more, read Politico.

Barack Obama is favored in Oregon, Hillary Clinton is favored in Kentucky, and Congressman Vito Fossella is going to resign.

As I have made clear in earlier posts (Thongs, Las Vegas, Tits, Negs, The Stalag, Britney, Josef Fritzl, Hot Cars, GGW, Juntas) d-bags loooooove kinky sex. To enjoy sex in itself is not unusual, as most of God's creatures find pleasure in copulation. As the old song goes, "birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it." Human beings, moreover, being more complex than fleas, bees, or even birds, have a more complex relationship with this most natural of acts, and that again is no cause for surprise or alarm. It is not remarkable that men and women feel love, anger, shame or even fear when engaging in sex, and that those feelings can heighten the pleasure -- the thrill -- of sex. It is also not remarkable that human beings, whose tastes are so varied in food, fashion, religious experience, etc., would have equally varied tastes in what pushes their erotic buttons. Pure empirical analysis of human culture and history make plain that there is nothing unusual (which is not to say taboo, immoral or wrong) with every conceivable kink from homosexuality to monk-like, self-flagellatory abstemiousness. Kinky sex makes the world go round.

For a d-bag kinky sex has a special significance. D-bags like to take the principle "I deserve it" to absurd lengths. They feel it releases them from the duty to act toward others as they would have others act towards them. Josef Fritzl is a paradigmatic example of this form of d-baggery. Not all d-bags have the inspiration or ability to lock their daughters in a dungeon and rape them for thirty years -- but that is not to say Fritzl was unique! The Marc Dutroux affair in Belgium demonstrates that this extreme perversion is possibly wide spread, and perhaps even institutionalized by syndicated crime organizations. Nor is this unique to the modern age. The Marquis de Sade wrote in the 1700s in his fictional novel 120 Days of Sodom about a group of four powerful men who kidnap children (including their own daughters) and imprison them in a remote mountain castle where they ritually rape and eventually murder them. The men represent the four types of power in France in the eighteenth century: one is a duke (government), one is a judge (law), one is a banker (business), and one is a bishop (religion), but their types are clear and obvious to us today. One needs only think of Mark Foley and Ted Haggard to see that power secular and spiritual is still human and corruptible, and Sade's point was that it is easier for the very powerful to commit crimes than for the poor and weak who are usually its victims.

As horrifying as these crimes are, they are not the end of the d-bag's enjoyment of kinky sex. Though it may seem contrary to common sense, d-bags take this sort of sexual perversion even farther by reveling in the hypocrisy of denouncing others as sexual perverts. The true essence of "I deserve it" cannot be appreciated unless you can self-righteously punish someone else for your own crimes. Take TV talking head Bill O'Reilley for example. O'Reilley obviously gets inordinate pleasure of the kind normally associated with sexual perversion from publicly humiliating people on his show. It is a perfectly Sadean setup that allows O'Reilley to get his jollies by publicly calling into question the sexuality of his guests. O'Reilley controls the medium: he can cut off his interlocutors whenever he feels like it, call his guests perverts and sissies, and he always has the last word. His guests are merely passive faces who must suffer through his lascivious rants and insults until he excuses them to perdition, and they have no recourse to turn the megaphone around. Though it has never been proven that O'Reilley has committed pederasty, incest or rape, his show is a symbolic rape of of the powerless and shows O'Reilley is a d-bag who thinks he is above reproach. (Remember that O'Reilley has been accused of sexual harassment, and his accuser claimed that O’Reilly subjected her to repeated instances of open and explicit talk about phone sex, vibrators, threesomes, masturbation, the loss of his virginity, and sexual fantasies. The same principle is at work when convicted drug addict Rush Limbaugh rants against drug users.) The ultimate sexual perversion for these lords of d-baggery is to publicly accuse others of crimes they feel they can commit with impunity.

Is it any wonder that our media is saturated with hysteria over pedophilia and sex crimes when those who own and operate the media are themselves perverts? In three separate news items today, the 19th of May, 2008 Americans have been told that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that would make the mere insinuation of pedophilia a crime, that a 6-year-old son of polygamist sect leader Warren Jeffs did not suffer physical or sexual abuse while living with his mother at the group's Texas ranch (why is this news?), and that Amanda McNamee of Dickinson, N.D (pictured above) is watching over us (or rather, is watching over sex offenders) to protect us from perversion. The ambiguity of her stare from the New York Times web site is no accident either. As we surf through salacious stories of polygamist sects and lenient judges, drooling over secret details of a crime that O'Reilley mentions are unmentionable, we are told by her stare that "justice" sees guilty and innocent indiscriminantly, promiscuously mixed, that we are all already guilty, and that unless we join the shrill chorus of accusers, we will be a member of the accused.

In the end, d-bag philosophy asserts that there is no uninterested party. Either you are vehemently, outrageously, hysterically against the pedophiles -- or you are one.

The Republican Party is making a concerted effort to get real after Tuesday’s crushing special-election loss in Mississippi, but the challenge will be agreeing on how to move forward with a new agenda.

The GOP is in a state of upheaval after Democrat Travis Childers’s stunning 54-46 runoff win over Republican Greg Davis in a very conservative district, and it immediately stopped trying to mask that fact after Tuesday’s result was clear.

But despite the stiff dose of reality — and House GOP Leader John Boehner’s (Ohio) Tuesday suggestion that sizable changes could be on the way at the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) — little changed immediately Wednesday as Republicans moved past what they hope will be their last competitive special election before November.

...snip...

[NRCC Chairman Tom Cole (Okla.)] said the GOP’s recent special-election problems have more to do with a deficiency in the party’s message and a loss of confidence in its ability to deliver.

Ummmm, I think that people got the party's message loud and clear from these guys....

Original DVD cover.

Boehner and Cole both issued blunt and sober statements after the third Democratic takeover in two months Tuesday. Numerous GOPers, including Boehner, were characterizing the result as a “wake-up call” and casting their task as avoiding a fast-approaching rock bottom.

Republicans didn’t offer many excuses for their loss, instead saying it provides an opportunity for the party to take stock of its damaged brand and re-evaluate the difficult six months ahead.

Cole admitted late Tuesday night that “voters remain pessimistic about the direction of the country and the Republican Party in general.”

Reps. Kay Granger (R-Texas) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) launched a process intended to change that by introducing a family values agenda Wednesday, and Boehner sent a memo around last week debuting the slogan “the change you deserve.” But nothing concrete has been established as a departure from the party’s past messaging.

Oh, yeah, that family values argument is working so well for you! Ask Vito Fossella....when he sobers up and finishes changing the diaper of his illegitimate daughter.

Tuesday’s loss was particularly painful for Republicans, who blamed previous losses in Illinois and Louisiana on flawed GOP candidates. This time, they had a solid candidate with plenty of money and lots of help, including a Monday visit from Vice President Dick Cheney.

All these factors left the GOP with few excuses to roll out after an eight-point loss in a district that voted 62 percent for President Bush in 2004.

...snip...

Despite the shift in rhetoric, the GOP isn’t ready to abandon its strategy of attaching Democratic candidates to Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), whom it maintains are albatrosses in the many conservatives House districts in play this year.

The strategy didn’t appear to work in either Louisiana or Mississippi, where ads were run linking the conservative Democrats to Obama and Pelosi. Cole said it’s “still a useful tool,” but that it’s not a stand-in for an actual agenda.

(By the way, my dearest Raisinettes, if you are wondering who is pictured above, from left to right, in ANIMAL: Bob Ney, Randall "Duke" Cunningham, and Katherine Harris. From left to right in HOUSE: Rick Renzi, Mark Foley, John Doolittle, and Vito Fossella. Of course, you recognize Boo-hoo John Boner Boehner in front.)

Don't forget, kids, it's Wednesday, and that means I've got something for you over at American Street!

Do you ever get the feeling that it’s just all one big perverted game to white people: their concepts of justice, decency, integrity and honor? Take, for example, the deviant behavior of United States Senators Mark Foley and Larry Craig - influential men in positions of public representation. We might even consider the Weapons of Mass Destruction motive that led them to the attack of Iraq and the murder of its leader. A disturbing pattern unfolds before us: people with personable public personas and dark reprobate agendas and lives. Can we, then, expect anything more of the people who vote for and support them? No. Hence, Channon Gail Christian and Christopher Newsom.

“It appears that white people are consumed with the debased and immoral behavior that leads to situations like that of Mak Foley, Larry Craig and Channon Christian. Much more than a game, they are involved in a perverted subconcious contest to see who can win at playing their game of fraudulent lifestyles. Again the Lord sees how great their wickedness on the earth has become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart are only evil all the time. And as they do not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient,” quoting from the Bible said Ghetto Bragging Rights publisher Kirkland Perkins.

A TALE OF TWO CHANNONS

A GHETTO BRAGGING RIGHTS MEMBER WRITES

DADDY’S LITTLE GIRL, BY GARY CHRISTIAN

I do know that ‘chan’ as she was called by her friends and (a) friend used to meet Black men together for sex. Fact. I know that channon was online and setting shit up with one or more of them.I know the authorities discovered that she, like most white women of breeding age, wasn’t innocent of anything, she liked rough sex, she craved pain, would seek out dangerous situations, liked gang-bangs and crept around like they all do now.She wanted exactly what she got and got what she deserved. It just a shame that quality Brothers got to go down taking these demons down.

“Do you not think that if they would’ve put a gun in her hand, one of two things would’ve happened: She’d still be here to talk to us, or she’d have took one of them with her.” Gary Christian, father of Channon Christian, said in an interview with Volunteer TV Monday..Gary Christian’s statement was in reponse to what Lemaricus Davidson’s girlfriend’s testimony that Channon was forced to shoot and kill herboyfriend, Christopher Newsom.Christian says that’s ludicrous. He says Channon had been trained about guns, and knew how to use one.

SPECIAL FEATURE:

Britney Bombed Knoxville CarjackFlick’s SexScenes

We all owe a debt of gratitude to the Democratic operatives that have risked their lives to bring us this first haunting photo:

Here we can obviously see a seemingly innocent piece of playground equipment that has been twisted by the right-wing propaganda masters into some sort of sick political metaphor...

Undercover operatives for the Democratic Party have told us that Republican parents force their unwilling children up the molded plastic stairs into the GOP's "Indoctrination Machine." These children remain inside for up to 48 hours until they are fully processed. The children, once they are completely transformed into a smelly mass of waste material, will eventually tumble down the chute behind the Indoctrination Machine fully prepared to carry-on the Neocon Agenda.

Said one Republican mother after her child was expelled from the Indoctrination Machine: "Oh, he's still the little stinker he always was...." where she snickered and waddled away.

UNICEF, Save the Children and Sally Struthers have begun nationwide media campaigns to save these poor little children before they've become indoctrinated into the little GOP shit's that's expected of each and every one of them. So please: If you can give anything, please give to Sally Struther's Christian Children's Fund. Because Jesus, and only Jesus could love these little Turds.

I found it on Bartcop Nation... So it must be true!

Má companhia

O então deputado republicano pela Califórnia Randy “Duke” Cunningham foi encontrado acompanhado por prostitutas em um hotel de luxo no Havaí, segundo a rede de TV ABC. O deputado foi acusado de receber propina, já que as mulheres e o hotel eram pagos por um empreiteiro norte-americano. Ele foi preso depois de confessar culpa por corrupção. 

Caso Foley

O deputado republicano Mark Foley anunciou sua renúncia em setembro de 2006, após 12 anos no Congresso dos EUA, por causa das acusações de que enviou e-mails de conteúdo sexual para menores de idade. Foley presidia na Câmara dos Representantes um grupo que defende menores desaparecidos ou explorados. A decisão dele foi tomada após a emissora "ABC News" afirmar que o congressista tinha enviado, para menores, mensagens eletrônicas de conteúdo sexual.
Pouco tempo depois, um ex-estagiário da Câmara revelou ter mantido relações sexuais com Foley. 

D.C. Madam

O senador republicano David Ritter confessou ter sido cliente de um serviço de acompanhantes na capital dos Estados Unidos, coordenados por uma mulher conhecida como D.C. Madam. Ele pediu desculpas pelo que disse ser “um pecado muito sério do meu passado”.  

Conduta lasciva

Senador republicano pelo Estado de Idaho há três mandatos, Larry Craig anunciou sua renúncia em setembro de 2007 por causa das acusações de que teria assediado um policial à paisana no banheiro de um aeroporto dos Estados Unidos. Desde que o caso ganhou destaque na imprensa dos EUA, o senador perdeu o apoio da população e do próprio partido, onde muitos defendiam sua renúncia. O policial que prendeu o senador sob acusação de “conduta lasciva” no banheiro de um aeroporto nos EUA acusou o político republicano de mentir durante o interrogatório. O senador admitiu ter encostado no policial por baixo da divisa da cabine do banheiro, mas disse que foi um acidente. Oficialmente, Craig admitiu culpa no caso, mas ele disse que só o fez para evitar um processo, e que se arrependia.  

Monica Lewinsky

O então presidente democrata Bill Clinton chegou a passar por um processo de impeachment, no qual conseguiu manter seu mandato, depois de mentir sobre suas relações com a ex-estagiária da Casa Branca Monica Lewinsky.
O caso foi revelado em 1998, e Clinton a princípio negou ter se relacionado com Lewinsky. Com o crescimento das acusações, Clinton acabou confessando e enfrentando o julgamento, o que marcou o restante do seu mandato.
A então primeira-dama Hillary Clinton perdoou o presidente, que atualmente é um dos principais cabos eleitorais na sua campanha em busca da candidatura democrata à Presidência do país.  

Capixaba Andréia Schwartz

O governador de Nova York, Eliot Spitzer, conhecido pelo apelido de "Eliot Ness" por sua cruzada contra o crime, anunciou sua renúncia ao cargo após a revelação de que ele era cliente de uma rede de prostituição de luxo. Segundo blogs norte-americanos que investigam o fechamento do Emperors Club VIP, o bordel oferecia 50 prostitutas em Nova York, Paris, Washington, Miami e Londres. Os encontros entre as mulheres e os clientes eram todos feitos principalmente através da internet. As garotas cobravam entre US$ 1.076 e US$ 5.921 por hora (algo entre R$ 1.800 e R$ 10 mil).

O mais novo do momento é sobre o prefeito de Detroid!

Ainda não tive tempo de me informar muito bem sobre o assunto, então entre no site do

g1 e confira!

Craig, who came to fame when he was arrested in the men's room of the Minneapolis airport for soliciting sex from an undercover police officer, became a giant liability to republicans who had been shaken by the Mark Foley scandal in October 2006.

I’m trying to figure out if Spitzer beats Mark Foley, the anti-gay molester of teenage congressional pages, on the cognitive dissonance meter. I give Foley a 10, and Spitzer a 9.6. You could make an argument that at least prostitution is consensual by of-age adults, but then we’d have to get into a much more complex discussion of misogyny in our society and the complexities of human commodification, and Cassmaster’s post already did that (although the post does not address Spitzer's clear hypocrisy on the issue). I don’t know, maybe it’s just because I’ve never been even slightly tempted by the whole pay-for-sex game. Sex is either something that's happening, or is not happening. That's the nature of cyclical existence. And if it's not happening, you have two choices: masturbate or meditate. Or both. And I didn’t even need to be Attorney General to figure that one out.

Second, Barack Obama gave by far the best speech on race I’ve ever heard by someone in my lifetime.

Third, the speech wasn’t about race. It was about human perception, unity, division, family, anger, oppression, corporate media distraction tactics, and the real meaning of community. Yet according to the Mainstream Media, it was a really good speech about race. Just like Dr. King was a only a civil rights leader (do you think it’s ironic that politicians who vote for war still get to celebrate his holiday, and don’t have to answer any questions about their total failure to practice nonviolence?) Ah, the need for soundbytes and headlines. To make stories simple. I reject the idea that Americans need things put in soundbytes for us. I reject the idea that Americans are dumb or have short attention spans. I reject that Americans need narratives shortened to one sentence. Hell, we watch 3-hour-long Lord of the Rings movies, why can’t we watch a 37 minute speech? Only the advertisers need the soundbyte versions to prevail. So there’s room on screen for the ads. Ergo, a 37 minute speech that covers – with poetry and nuance – the entire psychological landscape of American identity history, is just about race. More room for the Continental Airlines banner ad on CNN.com that way.

Maybe to combat this tendency, I will also stop trying to summarize things that cannot be summarized. If anyone asks me what the novel I’m writing is about, I will say, “It’s about IT. It will take you about 7 hours to read. Do you want it?” Of course, you need to get your pitch together to get published, I know, I know. I have a good pitch, too. I'm such a goddamn hypocrite.

Fourth of all, I think I’m addicted to political blogs. At first it seems deeply communal and insightful (holler at me, netroots) but it gets pretty samsaric in a hurry. I am seriously considering another weeklong internet cleanse.

Fifth of all, it’s very hard not to get mildly depressed on Sunday night. Even if you finished all your homework already. As a Buddhist, I am depressed about Tibet, but honestly, not nearly as depressed about Tibet as I am about Darfur. Did you guys see the craptacular hack job editorial that the NY Times published against the Dalai Lama this weekend? Apparently the dude who wrote has worked on the Tibetan cause for a long time, but apparently not long enough to know that a bodhisattva is not a god. Jeez, you learn that after studying Buddhism for about four seconds.

Can’t wait to see everyone Monday Night! That always cheers me up.

When the weathers unfair

Pass the cup of despair

There’s something I’ve seen moving fast from behind

In the rear view mirror, of a bothersome mind.

A frail specter of truth from the news in the know

On the day of malaise out of sorts long ago

It was an up to the minute report from the front lines of some war.

Some war somewhere, out in the severely unfashionable parts, of the small, small world

In a pitched battle over thiefdoms, a couple of fun loving warlords had reduced a squalid, desperate little town to smoking rubble.

As I lay on the sofa gazing half awake a shaky camera on the shoulder of an obviously terrified reporter pans scenes of destruction. In the near distance You hear explosions and sporadic gunfire

For a short while the camera settles on a small pile of filthy rags mixed in amongst the rubble.

On closer inspection these rags become a small boy of perhaps but never more than ten. In his arm he cradled a smaller boy presumed his brother.

They seemed to be.............they seemed to be…… conversing.

A few words recorded before the reporter quickly moves on to safer ground

It was at this point in pointless prime time, that a smartly dressed news room reporter delivers translation with a crisp English accent.

Smaller nameless boy “are we going to die here?”

Nameless older boy “maybe we’ll get to go to the hospital”

Curse what gods you vain enlist

Wail down the high

Shake futile fist

Bring endless night

All light dismiss

No day, should dawn

On such as this

No day, should dawn

On such as this

After short commercial break the news moved on to more pressing matters.

Something I believe .....I believe….I…..I........about a dog that could growl “I love you”.

I heard no more news of the boy’s plight or the war in the days to come .

It was as I’ve said a very unfashionable part of the world, of little consequence in the greater scheme, of western things, and peaceful dreams.

Still I like so much to believe the boy’s made it somehow.............someway far away….

To whatever passes’s for a hospital in that forsaken third of the small small world.

Though I know better for worse………………

What’s the frequency Kenneth?

Can it be so?

Por Miranda Simon 

Los escándalos sexuales parecen ser un tema reincidente en la trama de Hillary Clinton – y nunca juegan a su favor. El gobernador de Nueva York, Eliot Spitzer que recientemente ha renunciado por haber tenido conexiones con una cadena de prostitución, era uno de los superdelegados a favor de Clinton, y  partidario de su campaña, aunque, como nota Slate magazine y el New York Daily News, entre otros, su ‘apoyo’

resultaba a veces más perjudicial que beneficioso.

Por otro lado, Eliot ‘la aplanadora’ Spitzer, no sólo arrasaba con todos los que podía, si no que se vanagloriaba de ser un verdadero aparato destructivo: aludiendo a la canción de James Taylor, gritó por teléfono al republicano Jim Tedisco; “Soy una pinche aplanadora, y te aplanaré a tí y a cualquier otro.”

Y parece que las aplanadas podría ser Hillary: al comienzo de las primarias, cuando los candidatos estaban tratando de ganar los estados más conservadores, Spitzer propuso una ley en la que se otorgaría a los indocumentados una licencia de conducir. Hillary, no supo que decir y fue ampliamente criticada por su falta de compromiso con una postura. Puede que, en este incidente, Spitzer haya pasado por alto la fortuna de su candidata elegida pero, esta vez, aunque renunció contra su voluntad, la falta de un superdelegado podría dañarla más concretamente.

 La noticia de que Eliot Spitzer había destinado 80,000 dólares a un servicio de prostitución para élites, fue recibida con risa y entusiasmo en Wall Street, donde el gobernador había hecho lo imposible para traer a los bandoleros bursátiles a la luz. Spitzer no carece de enemigos, sin duda, con cierto deseo de exponerlo. También debe destacarse, sin embargo el ahínco que han demostrado los medios estadounidenses por enfatizar los antagonismos de Spitzer. Pero, como demuestra el Huffington Post, Spitzer había estado usando la empresa de prostitutas ‘Emperor’s Club’

por más de seis años y hace ya mucho tiempo que se había estado monitoréando el flujo anormal de dinero en su cuenta bancaria. La pregunta surge, ¿Por qué se revela el escándalo sexual de un gobernador demócrata justamente cuando la elección por el candidato demócrata a la presidencia resulta cada vez menos predecible? ¿Por qué ha salido esta historia: por los enemigos de Spitzer o los de Hillary?

Esta historia se compara muy bien con el famoso escándalo del senador Craig de Idaho quien, tras una imagen profundamente moralista y homofóbica, escondía una tendencia que, bajo sus propios términos, se consideraría pervertida. Spitzer, por otro lado, persiguió a, por lo menos, dos cadenas de prostitución, reporta el New York Times, una de ellas, cuatro años antes de él ser acusado por estar ligado a una cadena de prostitución. Lo que conecta a Spitzer y Craig, evidentemente, es la doble cara, y muchos periódicos, uno de ellos el New York Post, no dudaron en traer a colación al senador republicano Larry Craig.

Otros periódicos, sin embargo compararon el escándalo con la infame saga Bill Clinton – Monica Lewinsky. El comediante David Letterman, en una parodia de las excusas de Spitzer, exclama en voz del gobernador: “Yo pensé que Bill Clinton ya lo había legalizado!”

Pero no es por nada que Freud y Jung usaban la asociación libre para descubrir el verdadero objeto detrás de los sueños: en la comparación hay tendencia. Además de que un cotejo de este tipo no puede si no beneficiar los intereses republicanos, es injusta; Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Karl Rove y Paul Wolfowitz son sólo unos de los nombres de republicanos en escándalos recientes. Si quiere más información, la revista electrónica Slate presenta un juego interactivo llamado "Bushies comportándose mal" donde se presiona la cara de un republicano y aparece su respectivo escándalo.

Dude. Ouch. So NY governor Eliot Spitzer got nabbed on a wiretap ordering up some tenderloin from his local meat market. For a while I figured that Republicans had a monopoly on outrageous behavior (see: Larry Craig, Mark Foley). In fact, this may be the biggest scandal on the Dems side since maybe Gary Condit chucked his intern into Rock Creek. So what's this mean for the Democrats? Probably won't matter much with regard to the presidential race; it's not like Spitzer did anything that would mark him as a 'degenerate', just a plain old run-of-the-mill asshole.

New York, on the other hand, will prove to be a different story. Spitzer's gonna have to call it quits after this; marital infidelity doesn't typically bode well for the constituents; and it sure doesn't help that, as far as first ladies go, Silda Spitzer's kinda smokin'. So now what? Mike Bloomberg for Governor? I'm betting that Spitzer's gonna have to call it quits pretty soon and hold a special election or something, after the Lt. gets his shot; there's gonna be a lot of people out for his blood after this, and finishing his current term probably just ain't gonna happen.

Seriously?!

Spitzer booked a room with a hooker, and people are saying he’s “involved in a prostitution ring”?

aarrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhhhh.

I just walked into a meeting to learn that some *disturbing news* had come to light– it was *blowing up all over the internet*, so why didn’t I know about it?

I actually love the fact that my colleagues expect me to stay abreast of new developments– I expect the same of myself. But I’m a bit puzzled as to how I just sat through an entire meeting under the delusion that some underworld had just been unearthed over which Spitzer lorded as pimp, possibly putting his government connections to nefarious ends.

He’s just another guy willing to spend a few hundred bucks on quality nookie.

Of course I’m aware that it’s against the law— just as I’m aware, as are you, whoever you are, that most adults agree that it should not be.

As to the fact that he’s a guy behind numerous high-profile prosecutions over the last few years— sure, perhaps any breach of the law on his part constitutes grounds to call the man a hypocrite. But for that h-bomb to really, really apply, one needs to demonstrate that Spitzer placed the prostitution industry within his crosshairs in one of his previous crusades— or that he ever overtly presented himself as the paragon of connubial virtue.

Schadenfreude is healthy, after all. Spitzer’s a Democrat, so I imagine the Republican pundits are all getting their make-up ready for tonight’s TV appearances. Well, good. But it’s important to keep things in perspective.

What I mean is that I anticipate at least one bloviator to throw up his hands and his eyebrows and ask where the cries of outrage are from the same Democrats who had a field day with Larry Craig, or with Ted Haggard, or with Mark Foley, or with— you get the idea. The bloviator won’t mention all those names, of course. Regardless, impressed with himself, the bloviator will add that the question just posed was a rhetorical one.

In a few days Bill Maher will probably feed this nugget through his monologue fodder grist mill, and we can pretty much expect him to note that the difference between Republican scandals and Democratic ones is that Republicans generally wind up tumbling out of the closet. Assuming that Barney Frank is not a guest that night, he might even get a laugh-- but that's not to say that he's got a point.

What made those Republican scandals into real scandals was the fact that there were specific points of public activity on each of the actors’ parts that rendered their deeds hypocritical.

I refer you to exhibit A:

Update!

It's been amply pointed out to me that Elliot Spitzer did, in fact, agitate against the prostitution industry in his role as New York's Attorney General. So then: let those h-bombs drop.

We’re angry. We’re fed up with the way most institutions in our society operate, and we’re appalled at the pervasive culture of corruption that’s becoming more and more evident in all levels of government, in major corporations, and even in humanitarian organizations.

We’re offended by the unmistakable bias of the mainstream media. Even more, we’re sick of the way Washington insiders spin every political misstep for public consumption, while they scratch each other’s backs to maintain the status quo.

We’re tired of watching special interests use their money and power to distort the legislative process and buy elections. Finally, we’re infuriated to see that such behavior has become so de rigueur that we’re no longer shocked by it. We actually expect it!

All of this needs to change. Immediately.

Wherever we look, in every sector of our economy, at every level of government, and throughout the world of politics, it’s obvious that the prevailing policies are deliberately designed to benefit an elite few at the expense of the rest of us. This systematic corruption has been going on for too long. It is time to turn our democracy back into what it was intended to be: no longer a government of the pampered congressmen, paid for by the lobbyists who pervert the process for the benefit of greedy special interests, but a government truly “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

How many times have you heard me say that.

It’s time for a transformation – a change we have the power to accomplish.

We’re already seen the beginnings of such a change. That’s why American voters sent a cleat message in the 2006 midterm elections. Turning Congress on it’s head, we defeated thirty incumbent Republican members of the House of Representatives and six GOP senators, ending the 10-year Republican majority in both houses. Furious about the never-ending ethical scandals, the flagrant self-dealing, the unproductive “do-nothing” Congress, voters desperately sought a clean slate – and they got it.

Unfortunately, new faces don’t necessarily mean new rules. If we don’t follow this shake-up with serious institutional reforms, we won’t have much of a revolution. Shifting players alone won’t be enough to transform the system. And it’s the system that needs a major overhaul. After all, the Democrats are hardly morally superior to the Republicans. They’ve had their own scandals, and they’re equally beholden to their own particular special interests. The American people didn’t choose them because of some positive belief in their message. We chose them because we were tired of the same old gang of thieves.

No, this recent election wasn’t a mandate for the Democratic Party. It was a mandate for correction and reform. As they have often said before, the American people voted for a slate of non-incumbents, and in this case that meant non-Republicans. (We would have done the same had the players been reversed).

It was definitely time for a change. If history is any guide, however, once the outsiders take power, they tend to forget about the very reforms that they promised. So now it’s up to us, the voters, to keep the pressure on – to force both Democrats and Republicans to clean up the Congress and reform our business community and public organizations. Because we know they’re not working. They’re certainly not being held accountable. And unless we start to hold their feet to the fire by pushing the enactment of some serious ethical reforms, the 2006 election will go down in history as a sophisticated game of political musical chairs.

There are some encouraging opening signs. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has forced through a series of reforms that curb some – though not most and certainly not all – of the abuses in her chamber. She has successfully induced her colleagues to ban travel and gifts from lobbyists….though congressional wives or husbands can still double-dip by going on their spouses’ campaign payrolls or working for lobbying firms. She’s required congressmen to identify the wasteful earmarked appropriations they cram into spending bills….though she hasn’t curbed the abuse by giving the president the power to veto or ignore the bloated spending amendments. Still, she has done something about the culture of congressional corruption, which is a lot more than he predecessor – Dennis Hastert – ever did.

The Senate reforms have led to serious changes, too. All corporate – and lobbyist – sponsored travel is now prohibited, as is the use of corporate jets by senators under any circumstances. In the House, new rules simply require members to reimburse the corporate sponsor for the actual cost of the flights, not just the first-class airfare.

These new rules are a step in the right direction, but we deserve much more. Before Congress can restore confidence in the integrity of its legislative actions, it must earn the trust of the American people.

And that’s no small job.

We’re skeptical. We’ve learned too often that corporations are cooking their books, humanitarian agencies are on the take, and congressmen are taking bribes and secretly increasing their net worth. We’ve felt swindled too often after watching our investments dwindle while corporate executives go around stealing everything that isn’t nailed down. We’ve grown resentful that they get away with it – and if they do get caught all they receive is a little slap on the wrist. And we want it to stop.

We’re revolted by the endless daily barrage of news stories chronicling fraud and abuse among our leaders. We cringed to learn the United Nations looked the other way while Saddam Hussein stole almost $2 billion of humanitarian aid funds designated for emergency food and medicine the Iraqi people in the UN’s so-called ‘Oil-for-Food Program’. And we bristled to learn that the UN ignored Saddam’s bribery of Russia and France to buy their support against the United States in the Security Council. Remember France’s then ambassador to the UN, Dominique de Villepin, and the impassioned speech he made against intervention in Iraq? Turns out, he wasn’t motivated by any fiery socialist idealism. No, his ulterior motive was calculated capitalist realism. France had become Iraq’s largest trading partner and de Villepin didn’t want to jeopardize that cozy and lucrative relationship. Moreover, Saddam had given several French politicians – including Chirac’s former interior minister, Charles Pasqua vouchers to sell Iraqi oil. Unfortunately for the French and Russians involved, Saddam also kept a ledger of these little favors – a document that later revealed the depths of these sneaky deals.

What France Got:

• Vouchers for 11 million barrels of oil to former interior minister Charles Pasqua (each voucher for 10 million gallons could generate between $1 and $3.5 million in revenue)
• Rights to develop a rich Iraqi oil field
• Payoffs to top French politicians, including diplomat Jean-Bernard Merimee (who holds the official title of ‘ambassador for life’), who took $156,000 in bribes to renovate his Moroccan vacation home while he served as a ‘Special Adviser’ to UN secretary general Kofi Annan

What Russia Got:

• Vouchers for 55 million barrels of oil to the Russian foreign minister
• Vouchers for 53 million barrels to Vladimir Zhirinovsky, former Russian presidential candidate and deputy speaker of the Duma (the Russian equivalent of the U.S. House of Representatives)
• Vouchers for 110 million barrels to the Russian Communist Party
• Vouchers to a former chief of staff to Valdimir Putin
• Vouchers to the Russian Orthodox Church
• Rights to another Iraqi oil field

What the UN Got:

• $1.9 billion in cash from the Iraqi oil sales.
• 13 million barrels of oil to the head of the Oil-for-Food Program, Benon Sevan later indicted on bribery charges

What Kojo Annan, Son of the Un Secretary General, Got:

• $2,500 per month for four years after he left the employment of a Geneva company that got an Oil-for-Food contract while he worked for them

What Saddam Got:

• More than $12 billion in cash for his personal use.

What the Iraqi People Got:

• Bupkiss. After all the bribery, graft, and outright theft, all the got were the leftovers.

And that’d not all. During the entire time the UN officials were supervising the Oil-for-Food Program, they never even noticed when Saddam shook down another $1.8 billion from corporations and government officials who were bidding to provide the food and other necessities to his starving citizens. It’s especially hard to understand why UN officials did nothing about their own employees who were on the take – or why Secretary-General Annan had no idea that his own son was riding the profitable bandwagon of surreptitious payoffs.

During the past several years, we’ve witnessed the shocking bankruptcy of Enron and WorldCom. With respective assets of $64 billion and $104 billion at the time of the bankruptcy filings, the two companies had been among the largest and most successful corporations in the United States. Because of the greed and fraud that permeated the highest echelons of these international businesses, thousands of hardworking men and women lost their jobs, their pensions, and their hopes for the future. Yet so far only a handful of the guilty executives who bled those companies dry have been prosecuted and convicted for those crimes, which changed the lives of so many.

And it’s not just public corporations that are the problem. Our government agencies has been just as crooked. Look at Fannie Mae, the federally charged organization owned by private shareholders that purchases mortgages in order to increase the availability of mortgage funding for low and middle-income housing. In 1998, Fannie Mae failed to report more than $200 million in expenses; from 2000 to 2003, it overstated its earnings by more than $12 billion. Why did they engage in this financial trickery? Because its top executives’ compensation packages – that is, their excessive bonuses – we tied to the company’s performance. No profits, no bonuses. So the only way the folks in charge of Fannie Mae could line their pockets with obscene bonuses was to make the bottom line look great.

The Amazing Democratic Gravy Train at Fannie Mae

• Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s CEO, collected $90 million in bonuses and salary
  

• Jamie Gorelick, its vice chairman, got $25 million
  

• Jim Johnson, its former CEO, got $2.9 million
  

• Hundreds of liberal nonprofits were given $35 million a year in grants
  

Raines, Bill Clinton’s former budget director, was forced to resign, but he kept his $90 million; now he ekes out a meager living on a $114,000 monthly pension, part of a total retirement package estimated at $25 million. According to the Rocky Mountain News, former Clinton assistant attorney general Jamie Gorelick got more that $25 million in compensation, including $15 million in bonuses. Jim Johnson, a Democratic insider who served as Walter Mondale’s 1984 campaign manager, received $966,000 in salary and a $1,932,000 bonus in 1998.

According to federal regulators, however, if Fannie Mae had been keeping accurate accounting, it would have paid no bonuses that year.

Congress is in on the game, too. And it’s not just one party that’s guilty. Fairly recently, Democrats and Republicans alike have been caught in major corporation scandals. One member of Congress was actually caught hiding $90,000 in cash in his home freezer (giving new meaning to the term frozen assets) and was apparently taped by the FBI as he accepted a $100,000 bribe. Louisiana Democratic congressman William Jefferson (I almost wrote Clinton) allegedly demanded cash payments and other favors for himself and his family in exchange for using his congressional position to help advance an African business scheme. After finding the frozen dollars, the Justice Department executed a search warrant on his congressional office. Republican and Democratic House leaders were furious, castigating the FBI for daring to search a congressman’s office and screaming about the separation of powers. Apparently, they view the House of Representatives as an asylum for criminal activity beyond the reach of the United States Department of Justice. Former House speaker Dennis Hastert and his successor, Nancy Pelosi, both righteously claimed that the documents were unconstitutionally seized from Jefferson’s office and demanded their immediate return. Now, isn’t that outrageous? Shouldn’t our congressional leaders want to investigate alleged criminal activity in their midst, rather than closing ranks around a suspect? (This rather reminds me of the Steven Segal movie “Hard to Kill”, wherein Steven confronts this crooked senator – and as the police start putting him in hand cuffs, he screams “You can’t arrest me, I’m a Senator”).

This bunker mentality in defense of institutional prerogative is common to both parties, and it may grow as more members come under criminal investigation.

And there are plenty to choose from. Former House Majority leader, Tom Delay (R-Texas) resigned after he was indicted on money laundering charges and implicated in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, one of the most amazing examples of special-interest influence peddling in the history of our nation. Former Republican congressman Duke Cunningham (R-Calif) went to prison last year for accepting bribes from government contractors. As he was sentenced, he boldly named other members of Congress he claimed had also take bribes! Ohio Republican congressman Bob Ney resigned in 2006 after pleading guilty to making false statements and accepting trips, meals, airline tickets, cash, and gaming chips in exchange for pushing legislation for Abramoff’s clients. And Congressman Mark Foley (R-Fla) also resigned after details exposed his relationship with male high school students serving as House pages.

Stay tuned…….

- Double Life

In my case it was very easy because of the progressiveness of my employer, The Republican Party. Their Big Tent philosophy enabled them to not look askance at my solicitation of male Congressional Pages, requests for information about masturbation, photos of them topless, and unbelievably interesting texting! Much of my playful nature had been well known to my leadership and they saw nothing wrong with it. That eventually enabled me to come out enter a new phase of my life with open ability to pursue my hobbies! So don't despair, our conservative party is there for you. Take that big step today!

Yesterday I wrote about the John McCain-Vicki Iseman scandal, and today I figured I would follow up with some of my thoughts.

This scandal isn't about sex. I don't think every aspect of a politician's personal life should be dragged into the public square. Politicians are people too, and people make mistakes--sometimes big ones. Politicians shouldn't be judged for every personal mistake they make; some things shouldn't be politicized, and the personal lives of politicians (usually) falls into that category.

Still, public figures should be scrutinized more than private citizens, so there are some exceptions to this. The first is if a public official is doing something illegal (like Mark Foley sending sexually explicit messages to underage pages or David Vitter hiring prostitutes). The second is if a politician's private conduct is hypocritical to their public behavior (like Larry Craig promoting Republican "family values" in public, while cheating on his wife and having gay sex in private). The third is if a politician's private conduct creates a conflict of interest.

Again, this scandal isn't about sex. It's about corruption. It's about judgment. McCain's relationship with Iseman was both hypocritical and a conflict of interest--McCain's attacks on lobbyists and special interests contradicts his close relationship with Iseman, while Iseman's company had business before the Senate committee McCain chaired.

It's clear McCain had an inappropriately-close relationship with a special interest lobbyist. Whether or not he slept with her is only relevant as far as it illustrates how deep his relationship with her was; even if McCain was never intimate with Iseman, his relationship with her was still inappropriate.

Supporters of McCain are trying to brush this story off as a one-day scandal, but the damage it's causing to McCain may be irreparable. Remember, McCain became a clean government crusader after he was caught up in the Keating Five scandal in the 90's. Reforming his image and reinventing himself was crucial to McCain's career--it's why he was the only member of the Keating Five to survive the 90's, and why he's the only member of the Keating Five still serving in Congress.

The NY Times severely undercut McCain's image as a clean government crusader by revealing McCain's history of close ties to a multitude of lobbyists, including Ms. Iseman. That was a major revelation, and it lead to the discovery of more of McCain's ties to lobbyists. Just read The Washington Post's follow-up:

For years, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has railed against lobbyists and the influence of "special interests" in Washington, touting on his campaign Web site his fight against "the 'revolving door' by which lawmakers and other influential officials leave their posts and become lobbyists for the special interests they have aided."

But when McCain huddled with his closest advisers at his rustic Arizona cabin last weekend to map out his presidential campaign, virtually every one was part of the Washington lobbying culture he has long decried. His campaign manager, Rick Davis, co-founded a lobbying firm whose clients have included Verizon and SBC Telecommunications. His chief political adviser, Charles R. Black Jr., is chairman of one of Washington's lobbying powerhouses, BKSH and Associates, which has represented AT&T, Alcoa, JPMorgan and U.S. Airways.

Senior advisers Steve Schmidt and Mark McKinnon work for firms that have lobbied for Land O' Lakes, UST Public Affairs, Dell and Fannie Mae.

This scandal calls into question one of McCain's most important attributes--his judgment. First, McCain's aides had to warn him repeatedly about the inappropriateness of his relationship with Iseman. Second, McCain put his image as a clean government reformer in jeopardy, even though that image has been central to his political career. Third, even after he escaped from the Keating Five scandal with his career intact, McCain still developed close ties to --and performed a variety of favors for--special interests and lobbyists.

Tristero says it best:

In other words, McCain admits his judgment is frequently awful. Even when he knows better, he can't help himself sometimes- he's easily, and dangerously, swayed by strong personalities and by his need for friendships with such people. But think about what that means. Even if you cut him slack on a personal level - something along the level of, "well, at least he has the courage to admit he's wrong and the insight to know why" - this is not the kind of personality you want negotiating with Vladimir Putin, to pick just one example.

Sure. Everyone makes mistakes. And even though McCain makes spectacular mistakes, that in and of itself isn't the real crux of the problem. Rather it's this: By his own admission, McCain can't learn from his mistakes. He knows himself that his personality is too rigid. That is the critical difference between John McCain and a truly qualified candidate for President of the United States. And no amount of straight-shooting hype will change that.

No, this won't go away. McCain won't be able to run as a campaign finance reformer or a clean government crusader without this story--and the revelations it's brought up--resurfacing. When McCain talks about his experience in the Senate, it will be tainted by discussion of his various favors to lobbyists and special interests. And when John McCain tries to talk about his judgment, his arguments will be undercut by how his poor judgment has repeatedly put him in ethically-questionable situations.

This is about judgment. Right now, McCain's is--rightfully--being scrutinized. The question is, will be he able to emerge from this with his credibility intact? Or will this scandal irreparably harm both McCain's campaign and his career?

Only time will tell.

For more Fox party-switching fun:

And, um, Bill Richardson isn't American. C-SPAN tells us he's governor of goddamn Mexico. Someone call Lou Dobbs!

Fox News Knows About That Democrat, John McCain [Wonkette]