A Thinking Reed

"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed" – Blaise Pascal

Pete Stark learned to love Big Brother

Via Jim Henley I see that my former congressman Pete Stark (D-CA) has gotten himself into a heap of trouble on account of some intemperate remarks he made during the S-CHIP debate:

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) filed to censure Stark in order to express his disgust with comments the lawmaker made last week during the debate on whether or not the House should override the veto of an expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Stark said: “You don’t have money to fund the war or children. But you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president’s amusement.”

I’m also inclined to agree with Henley about the show-trial quality of Stark’s craven, groveling apology:

“I want to apologize to my colleagues — many of whom I have offended — to the president and his family and to the troops,” Stark said. He added that he hoped the apology would allow him to “become as insignificant as I should be” as the House moves forward on critical, divisive issues.

Stark then left the podium, wiping away tears as Democratic colleagues surrounded him with supportive handshakes.

Good Lord, what’d they do to the guy to produce that?

, ,

One response to “Pete Stark learned to love Big Brother”

  1. Kevin Carson

    I’m always sickened by such gutlessness. This is yet another example of why I hold the Congressional Democrats in such utter contempt. Every time one of them comes out and says what needs to be said about the gang of war criminals that calls itself an “administration,” the talk radio crowd goes ballistic. And then the Democrat starts stammering and hemming and hawing around: “Er, um, what I really meant to say was…”

    But here’s the thing: when the howls of moral outrage start, there’s no appeasing them. There’s no way to mollify the professionally offended. The only way to deal with them is to avoid showing weakness, because that’s when they go in for the kill. No matter how much Stark whines and grovels and blubbers, the Hannitys and Limbaughs will keep the outrage going for weeks.

    The thing is, the Republicans are already using everything they’ve got when it comes to offensive, red meat rhetoric. When they start squealing in outrage over Democratic “anger” and “hate,” it’s because squeals of outrage are all they’ve got.

    I’d like to see a Democrat, for once, have the balls to treat the squeals of outrage like a shark treats blood in the water–as a signal to go in for the kill. Every time the Repugs squeal, hit them harder, until they shut up or are reduced to incoherent blubbering.

    If Kerry had responded directly to Rove’s talking points and to the swift boaters with the kind of “opposition research” material that appeared in Atrios and Kos on a daily basis, and threw it right back in Bush’s face during the debate, he’d have caused Bush to fall down and start foaming at the mouth right there on live network TV. For example, why didn’t he just say something like this:

    “The leading figure in the swift boat campaign also impugned the war record of President Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush. It’s a shame that President Bush wants to win badly enough to associate his campaign with someone who smeared his own father’s war record.”

    And then when Bush started in with the patented Republican Moral Outrage (TM), Kerry should have responded: “Yeah, that’s what I said, and that’s exactly what I meant! And not only that…”

    Reply

Leave a comment