Whenever you think that politics has gotten as weird as it can possibly be, things just get weirder. The Democratic Party and its sycophants are a perfect case in point.
For starters, consider how Democrats and Leftists in general immediately head for the grassy knoll whenever things don't go the way they wanted:
- Al Gore's loss in 2000: Well, even though it was Gore's attorneys who started all the litigation and even though the Supreme Court came to the right decision (albeit with the wrong Constitutional citations) The GOP just had to have stolen the election. After all, it's impossible for a Democrat to lose!
- The folks who think that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job, or otherwise somehow staged by the government are almost all Liberal. They are also the kooks who think there was someone on a certain grassy knoll 45 years ago.
- They think that the elections of 2004 were stolen from them as well, citing irregularities in Ohio. Of course, we are not to consider how dead people become Democrats immediately upon assuming room temperature, especially in Chicago
That's right, folks! There's a conspiracy out there for everything. Everything, that is, except the occasional Democratic electoral victory. Doesn't it seem odd that the Democrats, who had majorities at the federal and local levels for decades before 1994, never got around to setting up the nefarious networks the Republicans managed in only six years? Please! Don't try telling me it's because the Democrats are better people, 'cos dat dog don't hunt!
Now we have a new conspiracy out there. It seems that, despite his rather disgusting appetites, former New York Governor Elliot Spitzer was targeted for political assassination by the Bush Administration. That, at least, seems to be the implicit, if not explicit, gist of Scott Horton's piece in Harper's Magazine:
So here are the rather amazing facts that surface in the Spitzer case:
(1) The prosecutors handling the case came from the Public Integrity Section.
(2) The prosecution is opened under the White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910. You read
that correctly. The statute itself is highly disreputable, and most of the high-profile cases brought under it were politically motivated and grossly abusive. Here are a few... [I'll leave out the history lesson.]
(3) The resources dedicated to the case in terms of prosecutors and
investigators are extraordinary.
(4) How the investigation got started. The Justice Department has yet to give a full account of why they were looking into Spitzer’s payments, and indeed the suggestion in the ABC account is that it didn’t have anything to do with a prostitution ring. The suggestion that this was driven by an IRS inquiry and involved a bank might heighten, rather than allay, concerns of a politically motivated prosecution.
Well then! It's obvious! I'm sorry, I just can't take these conspiracy theorists seriously. What Scott Harper is trying to do is defend the indefensible by casting doubt on the motives of the investigators. What he is leaving out is that pesky little fact that Elliot Spitzer has been patronizing the oldest profession for a decade, spending to the tune of $80,000, and concealing his activities from the New York voters, all the while crusading against, among other nefarious no-good-niks, prostitution rings.
What ever the motivations of the investigators, the fact remains that Elliot Spitzer was caught red handed by the very same laws he used to prosecute Wall Street executives and high class pimps.
Meanwhile, back in the fever swamps, we have Geraldine Ferraro making news again. This morning, she tendered her resignation to the Hillary campaign, saying, "The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you." Of course, she is denying that she had anything as gauche or racist as we little people might think. She was actually paying Saint Barak Obama a compliment!I'll let you decide what this comment is supposed to mean:
"I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very
secondary place to Obama's campaign - to a kind of campaign that it would be
hard for anyone to run against. For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
Now, from my understanding of basic English, she was clearly saying that only Hillary can be a white woman who can be nominated, and that Obama is only getting attention because he was a black man. After all, the only possible reason anyone could dislike Hillary is because she is a woman. This is demeaning to all voters, since it assumes their inate misogyny and racism.
On Good Morning America, Ms. Ferraro made an impassioned defense of her comments, telling Diane Sawyer to "Hold it for a minute..." repeatedly as she rudely overran the interview. You can see a video of the encounter here.
There is no truth to the rumor that Saint Obama replied, "Uh... Thanks!... uh, I think."
This, of course, is just par for the course with Liberals and Democrats. They aren't guilty of anything they might do. It is those Evil Republicans, who can't help but trip over the Left's intranigence, that are to blame for even noticing their peccadilloes. Remember Hillary's "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"? That's another one for the books!
I sure hope I don't catch whatever the Kook Fringe has!Copyright March 12th, 2008