H.RES.847

Title: Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith

"on December 25 of each calendar year, American Christians observe Christmas, the holiday celebrating the birth of their savior, Jesus Christ"

[snip]

"expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world."

Some enterprising young representative should have put an amendment to the resolution declaring January 1st to be the first day of the year.

I think the fact that 9 Democrats voted Nay to HR 847 was interesting. You can almost imagine the political attacks ads next year:

“Congressman Jim McDermott doesn’t believe American Christians observe Christmas on December 25th……

He said he believes October 13th to be Christmas……

On November 4th, vote for Bob McRighteous

He knows when Christmas is!”

As usual you're being too modest. You're work here was invaluable! And it does restore hope in the possibilities of over-powering these Goddamned (in the truest sense of the word) bastards in Washington.

Anonymous@6:29AM is a gutless coward who sits in wait to spew his filth whenever the word 'Israel' appears in Glenn's postings. The fact that he's too filled with shame and self-loathing to even have a screen name suggests that he's probably a staunch, fist-in-the-air, invertebrate, neo-conservative. Possibly Joe Lieberman, maybe Norman Podhoretz, but definitely a coward.

I would say the same is also true for Dennis Kucinich. You cannot mention his name and not be instantly met with "He's not electable." And when you ask why, invariably it comes down to "substantive" reasons like .. he's short or his name is odd. It’s ingrained in people’s heads that Kucinich could never win, and I have never heard a good reason why. Last time I checked he was right about Iraq, he doesn’t dress in drag, and he doesn’t have a lisp. Things are Serious Presidential Candidates have that don’t seem to make them “unelectable”.

If I can play devil’s advocate, if Harry Reid ran for president then his stance on reproductive rights would take on a much more front-and-center role. And by the same token, if Ron Paul was to become a Democrat and was then considered for Senate majority leader, his views on reproductive rights would probably be far less important. I’m not saying I agree that’s the way it should be, but people hold a presidential candidates views to a much different standard than any other government role.

That being said, great point on hypocrisy!

In a climate where every candidate must grovel before 'Invisible Sky King' as a right of passage to be seen as a sensible, ethical and sane individual, it's no wonder we have this equally irrational belief in, and love for, our excessive military spending - without even a serious consideration for how it's protecting us (it did nothing to prevent 9/11, and the thinking remains unchanged).

This country is more and more becoming nothing more than a trough for the uber rich to feed from, and the lives decimated by what they're doing are completely expendable to both the wealthy and our national media.

"Bhutto's assassination could well work to Giuliani's benefit.."

- Washington Post

"Rudy Giuliani will be helped by this (Bhutto's assassination) .. On the Democratic side, I don't think there's any doubt it helps Hillary Clinton"

- MSNBC's Joe Scarborough

Yeah ... I'm shocked that Iowans didn't act like bit players in a bad 1950's sci-fi movie running to Hillary or Rudy to "save them from the turr-ists!!" when Bhutto was assassinated.

Not only is the national media hopelessly out of touch with American sentiment, they act like 9/11 is a recent event and not 6 and 1/2 years ago. This country has had its entire identity put through a meat-grinder since then, anyone still embracing the "9/11" mentality of fear AND looking to "Our Leaders" to save us (we have had the Iraq War and Katrina since then) must REALLY believe Americans are morons who learn nothing from experience. People do not feel "let down" or "disgusted" with what this country has endured - they are f**king ANGRY!

"So who won? It depends whom you liked in high school. Did you want to park with the jock? Or did you admire the smart kid who volunteered Sundays at the foodbank?"

Michael Scherer - TIME

"Did you want to park with the jock?"

The GOP he-man society (and the press that loves them) claim to be outraged by John Edwards having his hair coiffed, but going down on the high school quarterback is a perfectly butch memory?

To paraphrase Larry Craig, "I love my wife ... but oh you kid!"

Along with the juvenile, sensationalistic slant on the campaign coverage, what about the “experts” they have on to discuss their garbage?

It seems almost impossible to imagine such a thing as a disgraced Republican politician or pundit in the eyes of the media.

They call on Tom DeLay (indicted for money laundering, has ties to Jack Abramoff, the Terri Schiavo fiasco, the K Street Project, etc.) to share his invaluable insights. Pat Robertson (who called for the assassination of the President of Venezuela, wants to detonate a "small nuke" at Foggy Bottom, said Ariel Sharon's stroke was God's retribution, agreed feminists and gays were responsible for 9/11, repeatedly claims God is literally speaking to him, etc), Ann Coulter (openly wished the NY Times building was blown up, is an egregious plagiarist, called John Edwards a “faggot”, etc.), Bill Bennett (hypothesized reducing crime by aborting black babies, blew millions on a gambling addiction, etc.), G Gordon Libby, Dick Morris, Bil Kristol, etc., etc., etc.

Not only is there no shame in WHAT they discuss, but there’s also no shame in WHO they discuss it with - provided their politics are rightwing.