Contemporary Politics

Think Progress caught the highlights.

Harry Reid is awesome. Nancy Pelosi is awesome. Chuck Schumer is awesome. Patrick Murphy is awesome. Okay, look, basically, all Democrats are awesome.

-dx

What changed, St. John? Oh, got it. A Democrat was president in '94, but a Republican is president now.

-dx

What Republicans who think that Rudy Giuliani's ostensible social liberalism can attract Democrats or Independents, you really forget what he looks like when the 9/11 varnish begins to fade.

Here's a reminder.

No way this guy wins a general, all things the same.

-dx

This gives a whole new meaning to the phrase, "[Candidate X] is hot..."

-dx

So earlier, I wrote about Rahm just stepping up and punching back at our beloved Veep, and I'm still amused by it. I found video, however, of Republicans scurrying around and trying to cover up Darth Cheney's imbroglio.

1. So here's Rahm discussing his amendment:

2. Here's Minority Whip Roy Blunt trying to rebut:

Here are the problems with Blunt's rebuttal.

a. While everyone in the Congress, the country and the rest of the world may know which branch of government hosts Darth Cheney, he, apparently, does not. It was Cheney who claimed that he's a special snowflake, at large branch of government without portfolio. (Think Fuzors!) So having Blunt stand up there and say that everyone knows that Cheney's in the Executive Branch is meaningless. It's also non-responsive.

b. There's a certain irony in Republicans claiming that an ironic amendment or piece of legislation is unfair. IOKIYAR.

Apparently, there's a part three. Blunt just cannot get enough of saying stupid things on the House floor.

a. Rahm is amazing. "I'll try not to be Talmudic."

b. Blunt is just being an idiot here. Of course the legislative branch ponders intent and meaning while passing the laws.

c. Rahm's dead right, as usual.

Now, the really funny thing about this is that the boys at RedState think that Rahm got schooled. Go figure. I guess Republicans figure that just making noises with your mouth is enough to answer a question.

-dx

I got this by email. Yay, ABC News!

-dx

Lost in Translation or Chinese Food for Thought?
Justice Department Vs. Massachusetts Ballot Issue Could Land in Court
By DAVID SCHOETZ

June 28, 2007 —

"Virtue Soup" or "Sticky Rice"?

Your preference may depend on your politics.

A ballot issue in the city of Boston has pinned the Department of
Justice's Civil Rights Division against the Massachusetts secretary of
state's office -- and the controversy may end up in court.

Under a 2005 agreement with the Justice Department, Massachusetts
agreed to make ballots translated from English into Cantonese and
Mandarin available to Boston's Chinese voters.

While some critics balked at the idea of offering ballots in any
language except English, Massachusetts -- like New York and California
-- complied. Or so it thought.

Now the federal government is pressuring the Bay State to not only
transliterate -- to write in the characters of another alphabet -- the
contents of the ballot, such as instructions and offices, but also the
surnames of candidates.

With the 2008 presidential election approaching, state election
officials took a look at how some of the big political names,
transliterated from English to Chinese, might appear in character
form.

For some, the translation, which must be done syllable by syllable,
painted a better picture than others.

On the Republican side, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's name,
for example, might translate to "Sticky Rice" on the ballot. If former
senator and "Law and Order" star Fred Thompson officially hops into
the GOP race, Chinese voters could have the option of voting for
"Virtue Soup."

Of course, the soup and rice would face a challenges from "Triumphant
Wheat," aka Arizona Sen. John McCain, and Rudy Guiliani, the former
New York City mayor, whose Chinese translation might be read as
"Peaceful Nun."

On the Democratic side of the aisle, N.Y. Sen. Hillary Clinton may not
be happy to see her name translated into "Tired Forest," while
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama might be read, to his satisfaction, as
"Profound Horse."

Brian McNiff, a spokesman for Massachusetts Secretary of State William
Galvin, said the issue goes beyond the big names of the presidential
campaign. Many of Boston's Chinese voters, he said, may likely
recognize those candidates. But throw in city councilor and state
representative candidates and other more obscure potential
officeholders and the confusion only mounts.

"And then you have this added factor of good and bad characters," said
McNiff, pointing out the somewhat favorable transliterations enjoyed
by some candidates and unseemly Chinese ballot titles others may
grumble about.

But the Justice Department continues to pressure Massachusetts
election officials, arguing that the inclusion of Chinese surnames on
the ballot not only would comply with the consent agreement, but that
the inclusion would better preserve democracy than forcing confused
voters to rely on poll monitors.

"We'll attempt to seek an amicable settlement whenever possible,"
Cynthia Magnuson, Justice Department Civil Rights Division
spokeswoman, told ABC News, adding that Boston city officials have
agreed with them and that it's the state leaders who are failing to
meet the terms of the agreement.

McNiff said the differences of opinion may ultimately end up in court,
a lawsuit that Magnuson said is not ideal, but could potentially
happen if necessary.

Sam Yoon, a Korean-born Boston city councilor, said he understands the
amusement the controversy has generated for some. But he's also heard
from angry constituents and is working with Asian-American and
advocacy groups to respond officially to the secretary of state's
office.

"It's kind of bewilderment," Yoon said in an interview with ABC News.
"Bewilderment at [Galvin's] failure to understand a system of
transliteration that over a billion people use and rely on, to
pronounce words that aren't Chinese."

Voters who take Chinese ballots won't mistake Mitt Romney for "Sticky
Rice," Yoon said, describing the notion that Chinese-American voters
would be that clueless in the voting booth as "condescending."

Yoon said that Chinese surnames on ballots work in other cities and
suggested that photos next to each candidate's name would also clear
up any confusion. Like Magnuson, he'd prefer that voters be able to
make their own decisions -- without any unnecessary outside influence.

"Anything we can do to foster independence and self-sufficiency in the
polling booth," he said.

Copyright (c) 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures

Wow, is anyone else sick and tired of the promotion of the idea of women as bubble-headed shoe addicts?

Skip the Shoes, and Change the World
Women, you've been challenged. By skipping the next shoe purchase at Payless and instead sending that $26 to a political candidate, you could forever change politics. "They need to start enjoying that pleasure instead of pinched toes," says Democratic fundraiser Susie Tompkins Buell, the founder of Esprit clothing. The idea was suggested by the Woman's Campaign Forum in a new report that found women to be poor political donors. "What if you could change the world for the price of a pair of shoes? Women can," says the report. Consider: The average pair of shoes costs $26.75, and if women gave up one purchase in 2006 to a candidate, they would have donated $1.3 billion. "If we think about all the women who are buying shoes at $50, $100, $500, the power is enormous," adds the report.

So let's look at this a bit more carefully.

1. Shoes are a necessity, political contributions are a luxury.
2. Since we judge women's outfits and appearances a lot more keenly than we do men's, is it at all surprising that they buy more shoes? I can get away with four pair of nearly identical black shoes and a pair of tennis shoes. If a woman were to have that wardrobe, she'd never be able to get a job, as interviewers would think her batty and unprofessional.
3. People who are shopping at Payless are probably doing so because that's what they can afford. These aren't the people who worry about having to decide whether or not to invite Dennis MIller to their million dollar fundraisers for Barack or Hillary. These are people who probably have just enough money to pay the gas bill. Political contributions are out of the question.
4. How come I haven't heard, "What if you could change the world for the price of a power-drill. Men can." I'd love to see the founder of Home Depot come out and say that.

Christ, just once, can we take women seriously?

-dx

This is presented without comment. It speaks for itself. Good God.

Josh Hopkins

Add to My Profile | More Videos

-dx

Holy shit. I worked at a Montessori school for years. I never came across anything as ludicrous as this.
Never once in my life.

God, don't women in this country get shat on enough? Now, we financially penalise them for breast feeding their children?

Jesus.

-dx

How dare something as trivial as reality gaet in the way of Republican narratives? -dx