Spineless fucking Democrats, Pete Stark edition

Goddamn it. Fuckety fucking fuck. First House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), whom we applauded less than a year ago because we believed she would speak the truth to power, criticized Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) for doing just that.

And just minutes ago today, Rep. Stark (right) actually fucking apologized for his remarks, after a motion to censure him failed.

Stark, 75, stirred cries of protest Thursday during a debate over President Bush’s veto of a $35 billion increase to a children’s health insurance program. “You don’t have money to fund the war or children,” Stark said on the House floor. “But you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president’s amusement.”

Stark initially refused to apologize despite condemnations from GOP lawmakers and others. Moments after Tuesday’s vote, however, he addressed the House to apologize to his colleagues, “to the president and his family,” and to U.S. troops offended by his remarks.

“I hope that with this apology I will become as insignificant as I should be” in the continuing debates over Iraq and health care, he said. [House Minority Leader John] Boehner [(R-Ohio)] was among those who applauded.

What the high holy fuck is it going to take for Democrats to stand up to the Bush crime syndicate and the fucking morons in the GOP? The Democrats are the majority, remember? How is it possible that, over and over again, they are so easily cowed into submission? And just when you thought Pete Stark was one Dem who had some cojones, he fucking rolls over just like almost all of the rest of those wimps? So he can get applause from a steaming pile of shit like John Boehner? That’s unbelievable.

It’s even more unbelievable when you see that a sweeping majority of Americans agreed with Stark:

CNN [reported last Friday] that 88% of those voting in their Friday morning online poll say there is no reason Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) should apologize for remarks blasting President Bush on the floor of the House of Representatives.

I’d say 88% is a sweeping majority. Fuck, even when every progressive blogger urges their readers to vote in one of these polls, we don’t get 88%! So what does it tell you when Pete gets 88% support on this? Hell, what should it have told Pete?

Bottom line: Pete Stark had no reason in the world to apologize. I mean, unless he was being blackmailed or something, he easily could have said, “Yeah, I was intemperate, but sometimes incivility is all the folks on the other side of the aisle understand.” But don’t fucking apologize! This constant, unnecessary kowtowing to the Republicans is disgraceful, and even more reason to make sure we have progressive candidates in every race next year, and every campaign thereafter.

And it’s even more reason why I think it’s likely I’m going to find myself in Denver next August. Maybe with pitchforks and torches. It’s time to get medieval on this shit.

UPDATE (12:26 pm 10/23/07): By the by, what the fuck is the deal with Stark wanting to be “insignificant” in the debate over Iraq? I sure as hell wouldn’t want my elected representatives seeking to be insignificant — I voted for my rep. because I hoped he would help effect change, and to the extent possible, he has. (That’s Ron Klein, for those keeping score at home.) But for Stark, a noted firebrand and 18-term representative, to want to be a wallflower at this critical juncture in history is fucking unforgivable. It’s dereliction of duty, goddamn it.

Fuck it. I’m going to Denver next August.

UPDATE (12:54 pm 10/23/07): I can’t let go of this shit. Okay, so maybe Pelosi strong-armed Stark into apologizing, and he doesn’t deserve as much blame for this as she does. But I’d like to think that if I were in Pete’s shoes, I would have placed personal integrity and the good of the country over the potential loss of political capital. Besides, the censure motion failed. Was that a quid pro quo — Nancy says, “You apologize and I’ll make sure censure fails?” Point is, Pete didn’t have to apologize, and the fact that he did suggests either he’s gutless or he got pwn3d by gutless leadership.

So I see the point of those who say that Nancy Pelosi very likely is responsible for Stark’s apology. Either way, they both failed us, and failed America, in this instance.

Today’s Daily Schadenfreude: Ron Paul

I’ve never been able to understand this Ron Paul phenomenon. College students in particular seem unusually smitten by his candidacy, I suppose because of his permissive stance (wide or otherwise) on drug use and his opposition to the war in Iraq. Of course, his emphatic opposition to abortion rights and his other batshit crazy positions seem to escape his supporters, or else they agree or, more likely, just don’t care.

At any rate, I doubt we’ll have Ron Paul to kick around for long. A recent poll by the Des Moines Register reveals that in Iowa, Paul has been voted Most Likely To Be Kicked To The Curb:

That’s right: more Iowans have eliminated Ron Paul from consideration than they have any other Republican candidate. Couldn’t happen to a nicer batshit nutjob.

Sure, Paul opposes the war and his rhetoric is all about keeping government out of people’s lives. But his proposals end up being racist, homophobic, intolerant, and unduly burdensome to the underprivileged in society, and of course his position on abortion rights is a deal-breaker for me right off the bat.

So, congratulations to Ron Paul, the least-liked Republican candidate in Iowa. Today’s Blast Off! Daily Schadenfreude is for you!

Better enjoy it while you can, Ron, because you’ll be relegated to the dustbin of obscurity very, very soon …

I’m honored to be nominated …

The nominations have been posted for the Florida Netroots Awards, and I’m proud to announce that Blast Off! has been nominated in the “Best National Blog” category. This humble space also received honorable mention in the “Best State Blog” category.

I really appreciate anyone and everyone who thought Blast Off! worthy of a nomination. The other nominees in the “Best National Blog” category, Bark Bark Woof Woof and Pushing Rope, are outstanding nominees in their own right. It’s an honor to be considered in their company.

You may vote by e-mailing Kenneth Quinnell at quinnelk@hotmail.com before Friday at noon. Check out all the nominees, and congratulations to everyone!

UPDATE (6:01 pm 10/23/07): I just fixed the bad link to Pushing Rope. Just noticed it. Sorry!

Who needs ethics?

This is why I love Washington. There are new ethics rules in Congress, so naturally the first thing lobbyists do is … learn to comply with the rules? Hell, no! They’re figuring out ways to circumvent the new rules!

The new statute bars lobbyists from taking lawmakers on trips. But lobby groups, particularly corporate lobbyists, are checking to see whether they can partner with colleges and nonprofit foundations to provide free travel to lawmakers despite the ban. The rules allow universities and charities greater latitude in providing the benefit.

Along the same lines, lobbyists, who are banned from organizing travel for lawmakers, are thinking about asking their assistants to do it — an action that would skirt the prohibition.

The new law generally limits “fact-finding” trips by organizations with lobbyists to a single day. That would seem to make it hard for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the lobby for the nuclear industry, to sponsor its oft-taken trips to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal site in Nevada.

Not so. Those trips can still go on, the association says. Although the organization is still double-checking with ethics lawyers in Congress, it is confident that lawmakers and staffers can “travel on Monday, do their tour on Tuesday and travel back on Wednesday,” a spokesman said. In other words, not much change.

In order to continue providing meals for lawmakers and their staff members, a few lobbyists are considering inviting their government guests to a happy hour, ordering drinks and chips, and calling the event a reception — the kind of widely attended party that the rules still allow.

Well, you get the idea. There are plenty more examples like that.

And people wonder what’s wrong with government. I don’t think it’s the politicians necessarily; I mean, who would turn down free trips and meals if they’re being thrown at you all the time? Sure, politicians have plenty of flaws, but the action on K Street is the primary reason nothing ever really changes in Washington.