The enemy of my President is my friend

Filed in National by on March 11, 2015

Using the morally dubious axiom above, the Republicans have reached out to Iran in order to try and give their enemy, Barack Obama, a black eye. Enough has been written already about how this is effed up – but let me add something that I heard a lot when Bush was in office, but haven’t heard discussed yet in relation to the “treasonous” 47.

It is a little something called – respecting the office of the presidency, you fuck-wits.

How many times did I hear that gem when Bush was rolling out fuckup after fuckup? Countless times. It was as if Republicans felt that there was a dignity to the office and to our system of government, and that dignity was being attacked when I pointed out Bush’s obvious flaws and fuck ups.

Well, “respecting the office” has certainly fallen on hard times. It has been years since I’ve heard anyone suggest that it was even possible for criticism of a sitting President to cross an imaginary line of decorum and propriety. But now, it actually seems like the GOP has gone too far. Like racists SAE members on a bus trip, the radical Obama haters have shown their true selves.

I will relish this moment, because I realize it is fleeting. Soon enough John Carney and Tom Carper will be on stage, or in print saying that Republicans are reasonable the trustworthy partners in governing. The press will return to its uncritical and shambolic false equivalencies and in the long run the Sunday morning shows will declare that bipartisanship rules resplendent once more.

But for now, I smile. It wasn’t me. It wasn’t all in my mind. Republicans and modern Republicanism is corrupt to the core, and everyone can plainly see it.

About the Author ()

Jason330 is a deep cover double agent working for the GOP. Don't tell anybody.

Comments (10)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. Realash | March 12, 2015
  1. donviti says:

    you know, I read something about how some democrats did this too. So, It gives me pause and makes me wonder if the outrage meter is a little askew on this one. The difference being that they were trying to prevent war. Perhaps that’s a big difference. But, they were still meddling in foreign policy….

    “….In 2002, Democratic House members traveled to Iraq in an attempt to avert the American-led invasion.

    And as President George W. Bush tried in 2007 to isolate Syrian President Bashar Assad, his administration sharply criticized Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic speaker of the House, for traveling to Damascus to meet with the embattled leader. The Bush administration said Syria failed to crack down on insurgents who used the country as a base for attacking Iraq and accused Assad of meddling in neighboring states.”

  2. SussexAnon says:

    Both instances are not the “same thing” as what the Senators just did.

    What the Senators just did is an embarrassment.

  3. Jason330 says:

    That’s some lazy reporting being propagated by http://www.breitbart.com

    I can forgive the LA Times for falling for it, they are professionals – but you too?

  4. MikeM2784 says:

    Trying to keep the peace is not the same as saying to a foreign leader that they should ignore a sitting president in the middle of delicate multinational negotiations.

  5. donviti says:

    This is why I am asking. It’s still meddling, it’s voicing your opposition and then acting on your opposition to the plan outside of the normal protocol by meeting with the leader. The Senators, sent a letter. Pelosi flew out to Syria.

    However, it is for peace. Where I think the difference here is the GOP hawks want war.

    To say though that it is treasonous, traitorous, or somehow without precedent seems a bit too much.

    They are wacakdoodles. They are little shits. They are war hungry pieces of trash that have not a care in the world for their actions. I just don’t know about the outrage meter being pegged the way it is

  6. jason330 says:

    The “democrats do it too” argument is specious. This statement is simply false. “In 2002, Democratic House members traveled to Iraq in an attempt to avert the American-led invasion.”

  7. ben says:

    And then in 2003, all the Democrats fell in line behind the president and voted for war.

    THESE confed-wannabees just pledged to act against the president, no matter the outcome of the peace talks, and push for another war, (which would surely get American soldiers killed) based mostly on the bluster of ANOTHER COUNTRY’S LEADER!!!
    Of course, this is Tom Cotton, safe forever in shit-pit Arkansas, trying to make a name for himself.

  8. donviti says:

    Ok, so it’s specious ( I can’t believe you spelled it write). But so what. They disagree. They send emails about watermelons and ears for parachutes. They call him a liar during a State of the Union…

    And it all get’s defended and is given a pass by half the country

    I have the vapors now…they wrote a letter…using official stationary…saying don’t sign the deal…we’re (shaking their heads as they say it) “CRAZZZZZZZZZYYYYYYY”

    Like Iran didn’t know these fucking religious conservatives that think the earth is less old then Iran has been around for, aren’t crazy. Gimme a break

  9. Jason330 says:

    Outrage fatigue. I get it. The thing is, for me, outrage over the ridiculous bullshit coming from Republicans is waaaaay overdue.