Wednesday, February 17, 2016

Today In Both Sides Do It: Ron Fournier, The Sad Clown of Centrism



The Both Siderist chip inside his head
Gets switched to overload...

The death of Tony "Big Zygote" Scalia and the subsequent mass, knee-jerk seditious freak-out on the part of the Republican party put sudden and enormous pressure on America's foremost Sad Clown of Centrism -- Ron "Severe Dementia" Fournier -- to cook up some bullshit reason why this is the fault of Both Sides.

Fortunately, thanks to a complete lack of professional ethics and apparently limitless reserves of raw, Beltway mendacity, Mr. Fournier rose to the occasion.
Behind the Supreme Court Stalemate

The Republicans are angry—and both parties are beholden to special interests.
This is followed by several paragraphs citing anonymous sources detailing the GOP plan to wipe their collective asses with the very document that they loudly and publicly fetishize every time they open their lying pie-holes in public solely for the purpose of making the Pig People sqeaaaaaaal with pleasure at the sight of their elected representatives screwing over America's first black president one more time before he leaves town.

Which is, in turn, followed by this...
I suspect it will be months, even years, before the Supreme Court is fully stocked. My pessimism is based on two assumptions: that the Republican base is angry and opposed to any accommodation with Democrats...
Can you guess what Mr. Fournier's second assumptiuon might be?
...and that the GOP isn’t the only party captive to its special interests.
Yay! You guessed it> You're so smart.

Mr. Fournier continues:
...
If the roles were reversed and a Republican sat in the Oval Office, I believe Democrats would block the lame duck’s nominee. They might be more artful about it—they might give lip service to the confirmation process—but the result would be the same.

Late in President George W. Bush’s term, Senator Chuck Schumer said the Senate should not confirm another Supreme Court nominee under Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.” He continued: “They must prove by actions—not words—that they are in the mainstream.”

Milbank calls that a “fine standard.” I would agree, if I believed that any nominee offered by any Republican president would ever meet Schumer’s definition of mainstream; if I hadn’t watched the Democratic Party move further left in the subsequent nine years; if I hadn’t watched the GOP move further right; and if I hadn’t watched both parties dissolve into petty recrimination and dysfunction.
You're a charlatan right down to your metatarsals, Ron, and what you "believe" is immaterial.

They haven't even laid Scalia out in his burial threads yet and you've already set up your pathetic little Both Siderist tent show at the tomb.

Shit, Ron, even a grave robber has enough professional discipline to wait until after the body is in the ground and the loved ones have gone to Denny's for brunch to start pillaging the dead for profit.

And we can see no reason
'Cause there are no reasons
What reason do you need to be shown?


10 comments:

bowtiejack said...

Yes, we know that if positions were reversed the Democrats would do the same thing, are by god doing the same thing or something something something OR maybe the term we should be hunting for here is "psychological projection" aka "blame shifting".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Of course, were someone in the media to report that "the GOP is simply accusing the other side of what they are in fact doing" there would be no more of those sweet sweet Georgetown cocktail party invitations or regular employment for that bad boy.

Come to think of it though, blame shifting is pretty much the whole GOP conservative project. That seems to be borne out now in the frightful degeneration (although great TV!) of the GOP "debates" which consist of a roomful of liars calling each other liars.

Habitat Vic said...

I can't put in words how disheartened I am with the media's (and the voting public's) take on this whole "should Obama be ALLOWED to nominate a SCOTUS, and should the Senate even talk to that nominee." Polling is pretty even (43-42 in favor of Obama nominating), Both Sider-ism is in full erection mode. A few hours ago I heard a talking head point out how Dems were disapproving of Harriet Miers, and thirty years ago were were critical of Robert Bork. You know, both sides equivalent.

Fuck's sake, Miers withdrew her nomination after the Senate Judiciary committee dared ask her to fill out a questionaire pertaining to her views and qualifications (she had never served as a udge in any capacity). And Bork did make it past the Committee and get an up or down vote (losing, with six Repub Senators voting against him). For those too young to remember, Bork was the slimy quisling who Nixon got to fire special Prosecutor Archibald Cox on the Saturday Night Massacre during Watergate. After the sitting Repub Attorney General resigned rather than fire Cox, then the Deputy AG also resigned rather than help Nixon avoid investigation. Bork was the piece of shit third man in line who put kissing up to Nixon over following the law, much less morality.

Yet both of those idiots had their day in the Senate. So did eventual Justice Anthony Kennedy under St. Ronnie. Confirmed in February 1988, during Ronnie's last 11 months in office on his second term. Not the same as Obama, since Reagan was a White Republican and Obama is ... well, you know.

dinthebeast said...

What was that Jon Stewart said on his last show? If you smell something, say something? Count me in as having spoken up...

-Doug in Oakland

Unknown said...

And Bork whined about it and dined out on it through one sinecure or another for the rest of his miserable fucking wispy-beared life.

Robt said...


Hit it Bowiejack
" "psychological projection" aka "blame shifting".
--Beating Straw Man. For 35 years. The Straw Man does not exist and cannot retort.

4 blows to the zombie head should be enough.

1-Quote; "...and that the GOP isn’t the only party captive to its special interests."

* Which political party brought K street to D.C.? It was a conservative SCOTUS that gave America Citizens United" Money is speech and unlimited. Corruption is legal. Your argument is that it is OK to be corrupt because others are?

2-Quote; "If the roles were reversed and a Republican sat in the Oval Office, I believe Democrats would "

* This is hypothetical. You know this because you took Joseph Smith's Mormon rocks, placed them in your hat and the Mormon God showed this unto you?

3-Quote; (Milbank) " If I hadn’t watched the Democratic Party move further left".

* As the right moved , sprinted, jumped further right they declared the leftward movement. As the far extreme right calls what was once the center, now call the left.'The left is the new extreme left. Yes, the left does look far away from the extreme outer limits where the right gathers to perform human sacrifice rituals. Just watch your GOP debates as evidence!

Let me finish with this,

As a veteran who served under Dem and Repub presidents.

No matter conservative or liberal. When you're called to war. Have to do some nasty deeds in the name of your country and keep others backs and keep yourself alive and sane.
We answer the call and perform. Like it or not. Being of the same political roots OR NOT.!
We may not like the war we are ordered into. We took an oath and perform.
There is a US Military Court of Justice to punish if you do not. unlike Congress as I see it.

Senators take a similar oath as well. No matter if they are the same ideology of the president or not. They have a DUTY. That duty is to confirm. No, Ted Nugent is not competent for the SCOTUS (ideology aside). So deny him. But a justice on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Who was confirmed, has a credible record counts. Being liberal or conservative is not the qualifying factor for any senator to deny or confirm.It disgraces all past, present and future military who adhere professionally to that oath.

The military does not choose its officers by ideology.

The Court was a majority of Conservatives for some time. I bared it. So again the court may swing the other way for a while. So I feel the rugged individualist tough guy conservative can bar it for a while.
Know this, Stop telling me that only republicans can govern (rule) this nation...



drbopperthp said...

I amuse myself on occasion by dropping twitter turds on his head when he's up to his more obvious bothsiderista shenanigans. Big Fun.

proverbialleadballoon said...

@bowtiejack: projection, and obfuscation. They're not paying Fournier to make the issues clearer to his audience.

Wendy said...

It saddens me that the wingnuts aren't even willing to engage in a spirited debate. Any of the ones up for re-election need to be voted out of office this November. And, for the first time in my life, I am firmly in favor of term limits.

Richard Luken said...

The definition of a "Lame Duck" is an office holder who will not be returning to the office he or she currently holds (either after he or she has lost an election or otherwise is prevented from continuing in that office by term limits). This latter is the case with President Obama; however, he will not be a "lame duck" until there is a president elect, nearly 9 months from now. If the President is a "lame duck" then every member of the House of Representatives is also a "lame duck." "Lame ducks" exist only in the period of time between election day and the day on which a new office holder takes the oath.

Of course, Republicans will falsely insist that President Obama is a "lame duck," but anyone who supports them in this error is a collaborator with them in their ongoing attempt (since the day he took office) to deny the president any opportunity to govern, or in this case, to fulfill his Constitutional duty to nominate someone to serve as an associate justice of the Supreme Court.

It is an "interesting" morality that claims, we are justified in doing something improper because we believe that our opponents would do something improper if they were in a position to do so. That would be the end of the rule of law. It is a formula for license.

There was a time when I believed that "both sides" agreed that the underlying principles of our polity were more important than who won any particular individual election. Events following the presidential election of 2000, with the installation of George W. Bush by 5 justices of the Supreme Court (whose reasoning came down to "because we can") cured me of that mistaken, idealistic assumption so far as the Republican party was concerned.

I have yet to see any evidence that Democrats share the belief that "winning" must come first, and matters more than the integrity of the process. But by their actions, Republicans have shown that they treat political conflict as if it were war, and in war, where the threat is existential, all is justified. Once again, NO, both sides are not morally equivalent.

Mark Armstrong said...

Agreed. Iraq 2005, lifelong Democrat. Did my duty in spite of my personal politics.