NEEEEEEEEY!

Now that Tom DeHate(R-Sack of Something So Repellent There's No Word For It) has departed the House of Representatives (having done so in grand fashion a few days ago, right after giving a valedictory address to the audacity of hate - er, the importance of partisanship), and now that Randy ("The Commodian") Cunnigham is sitting (well, hopefully not sitting) in a federal penitentiary, the House Republican most clearly marked with an "X" on his back is Bob Ney of Ohio.

Ney is a typical House Republican - he thinks "morals" consist of hating gays and mentioning Jesus as much as possible without knowing a thing about him... Big surprise. He's up for re-election, and has acused his opponent, Zach Space, of, not caring about traditional "Ohio values" (hatred and bigotry, I guess) because the opponent appeared.... on an "ultra" liberal talk show. (That does it, I'm leaving right now!) No surprise there, either - the guy can't think and he's into "family values" (he only sodomizes his WIFE - under a gentle Stepford whisper of protest, of course).

What is unusual about Ney is how the pressure has finally gotten to him. So many Republicans seem to never short-circuit - even when theiir poll numbers take a dive, even when they know they're going to be indicted - and even before the days Diebold started fixing elections and before there was no wedge Karl Rove coudn't drive (memo to Karl: find a new set of wedge issues. Gay marriage, flag burning and the estate tax have been flogged so badly some Republicans appeared to have grown a brain as they voted against out of lock/goosetep with the party in the past few weeks on these issues. Yes, you can fool all of the sheeple all of the time, but their representatives may go so far as to refuse to chew on the same pus-ridden cud time after time if doing so means they'll lose a race and thus their ability to sheeple-ize. Suggested new wedge issue: take a line from Ann Coukter, and have Congress debate a "we should be allowed to ridicule the 9/11 widows bill, because the widows hate us for our freedom." This bill hits the themes of terra, 9/11 amd irrational hatemongering that are your calling card. It's like a shit-stained trifecta. Go for it. Oh, and get that "9/11 Non-Widows For Truth" (i.e. people who never questioned anything after the attacks happened) ready and mobilized.

Anyway, back to Ney. Here's the story:

Under pressure, Ney lashes out at press coverage
By GEORGE E. CONDON JR., Copley Washington Bureau Chief
6/9/06
WASHINGTON – Rep. Bob Ney, under enormous political and legal pressure for more than a year, has lashed out against press coverage of his plight, voicing great displeasure over stories focusing on the controversial golfing trip to Scotland that threatens his grip on the congressional seat he has held for six terms.
In two rambling e-mails sent from his Blackberry device to Copley News Service reporter Paul Krawzak, the Republican congressman from Ohio ridiculed the veteran reporter, challenging his ethics and mocking the 5-foot-7-inch Krawzak as “big man.”
The trigger for Ney’s rage was Krawzak’s coverage, carried in The Times-Reporter and its sister Copley Ohio newspapers, The Repository and The Independent, of the trial of White House procurement official David H. Safavian (who worked for GSA during the time of a case I handled for a GSA employee; I even have some emails to and from this guy that are part of the case). Safavian is accused of lying and obstructing the criminal investigation of the once-powerful and now-discredited Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Testimony by Ney’s former chief of staff, Neil Volz, on May 30 provided some new details on the 2002 Scotland golfing trip that has been the cause of much of Ney’s difficulties. That trip was paid for by Abramoff and included Volz, Ney and several other political insiders.
That story was written by Krawzak late in the evening and the reporter did not call Ney for his reaction to the testimony (nor was he required to). The next day, when Ney’s office complained about that, Krawzak explained the lateness and press of deadline but acknowledged it would have been better to have sought Ney’s comment.
That acknowledgment was not enough for Ney (it never is), who four days later – on June 3 – had his thumbs flying over the tiny keyboard of his Blackberry, with punctuation and spelling often yielding to his evident anger.
“Let me tell you paul-last week you did not call us for comment ‘you were under deadline,’” began Ney, who then reflected his belief that his critics just keep recycling the same story about the golf trip. “Print the same story-change it to reprint the same story-people in new philly – d’s and r’s call it ‘elk’s politics.’”
He concluded his message with “Go for it – harass my wife and daughter a little bit more big man – maybe I will take out an add talking about your ethics.” The reference to his wife and daughter reflected his continuing anger that earlier this year another Copley News Service reporter, based in Ohio, interviewed his neighbors and knocked on his door seeking comment from his wife. (Love that Republican definition of harassment - it's two words when it applies to one of their bent-over pages, but when someone knocks on the door of one of their family members, it's "harassment.")
Lest there be any doubt about either his anger or his desire to vent that anger, the congressman sent a separate note from his Blackberry later in the day. “Please-please-print this paul-you don’t care about ohio-i am sick of your crap. You are a d c person who couldn’t find ohio unless we gave you a map. You don’t give two shoots about our people.”
Increasingly, Ney has complained that reporters based in Washington do not understand the dynamics of Ney’s district, explaining his jab at Krawzak as “a d c person.” (The "dynamics" of the district, as represented by Ney, include the same pay and play K Street bullshit that IS DC. What's the difference?)
Brian J. Walsh, Ney’s communications director, acknowledged Thursday that the congressman is frustrated at the news coverage he has received.
Walsh said that Ney continues to work hard on(demonizing). issues such as housing and immigration and energy

******************************************************************************
two things Republicans have learned to do over the last 40 years that have served them tremendously well:

1. Avoid debating your actual opponent (this assumes, obviously, that you've already made a conscious effort - for a Republican) to avoid debating issues of substance, which, if you're a Republican, is a given. Witness the Bilbray v. Busby race, where Republicans took a verbal gaffe committed by Francine Busby that they knew had nothing to do with anything and made it seem as if the gaffe implied that Busby was encouraging ILLEGAL ALIENS TO VOTE WITHOUT DOCUMENTATION! These guys can't win elections any other way. They do the non-thinking for you. Call their ads a a public disservice announcement. And why, oh why, can't Democrats, for once, either confront these people head-on about the fact they are bigots and scare-mongers, or for just one goddamned election and purposes of that election only, pretend to AGREE (sort of - you'll see what I mean) with the biggies on things like I-llegal immigration -JUST TO SEE if parallel wedge-issuing will get them some votes! They can, once elected, of course, abandon all pretense about agreement and address the real problems facing their constituents. For those of you saying this is "unprincipled," you're missing something that you claim to recognize: the electorate is brain dead. The only way in the foreseeable future to restore cranial health is to defeat a Republican's opportunity to create a (workable) wedge - turn by turn - using some creativity. I'm not saying this means Democrats should go out and support gay marriage bans. How about, though, at the LEAST, doing something like at least RECOGNIZING the bigotry of your constituents and saying, "My opponent is only trying to flame it. He doesn't actually care about who he hurts in this process. I'm looking for a way to solve this problem that will make people STILL WANT TO LIVE HERE!! How about THAT? How about, if, say, you really feel we need to expel some illegals, saying, "I think we need to do this because of legitimate reasons x, y and z." My opponent thinks we need to do it because he's a bigot, pure and simple, because if 12 million Northern white constipated Europeans suddenly "invaded" America, he wouldn't have a damn thing to say about it!" THERE'S A THOUGHT - a thought! But NO! Democrats who want to win in bigoted districts are still laboring under the impression that they'll win using the same musty bag of tricks. Perhaps they can win is by being hard-nosed but without the screeching.

2. Create an opponent to run against - i.e. the press. Ever since Richard Nixon's extraodinarily nasty 1962 concession speech, in which he treated people who had spent thousands of hours working for him to am embarrassing spectable of self-pity that concluded with a harangue against the press, punctuated by the words, "You [the press] won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore!", Republicans have always tried running against "the press," as Ney has chosen to do so here. Running against "the press" is a lot easier than running against a candidate, because the press does not put out position papers and does not debate you, and is an easy figure of ridicule. And how can the press respond to the campaign against it? It can't. The opponent can't either. Democrats literally need to call Republicans day and night on this strategy. Their campaign consultants need to call the other side every day and ask, "Who is your candidate running against today? Me or the press?" "If the press, what's the press's position on social security reform? The liberal press? The conservative press? Which press' side does your side favor? Why? Who do you think your candidate will wil against? The press, or our candidate?" In short, the Democrats must mock these "I'm running against the press" candidates into the ground.

There's still time left, and Lord knows we'll need every minute of it, as Rove will be reminding us that the capture of Zarqawi has made us more safe. Which is why, of course, immediately after his death, 6 bombings ensued that killed 60 people. And, of course, Zarqawi is why the civil war - Iraqis killing their neighbors - is going on. And had we not invaded Iraq, let's not forget, to paraphrase Dick Cheney, he never would have went on his rampage. Blah Blah Blah. If thiis guy was so important, then since we killed him, can we leave now? No - because we must create MORE TERRORISTS so more of our troops can die - thereby honoring the sacrifice of those who needlessly died already! It was this logic that created Zarqawi in the first place.