Boy, Josh Micah Marshall in dire need of Cranial-Rectoscopy

Apparently, he thinks it's "bad policy" to impeach a criminally-conspiring president because a criminally-complicit congress has not engaged in oversight YET(?!?)

Perhaps he's waiting for M. Godot's white paper on the matter.

Furthermore, with his stratego-electoro-politico acumen, he has divined that impeaching bush for his abysmal record (of crimes and misdemeanors, high and low) is "bad politics because it will take attention off the president’s abysmal record and put it on the hot-button issue of impeachment and whether Democrats should be pursuing such a policy."

I've heard of circular logic, even imagined what spiral logic might be, but I think he's achieved a double helix here.

Poor guy. He's usually a good egg -- just currently scrambled by the beltway mind blender being set on Cyclone.

(Josh, just start screaming "It's a twister Aunti Em!" and maybe someone can drag you out.)

--

Donations for the aforementioned emergency medical procedure for Mr. Marshall can be made to:

The Foundation for the Preservation of the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy
www.beltway-sphincter.org

:rofl:

Josh is grappling with trying to come up with a rationale for doing nothing when something clearly has to be done, but the risk of losing is high. That's the dilemma that all Dems are facing in DC.

I think, though, that the Dems have done best when they stop focus grouping and act like a real opposition. Otherwise, they're just going to be labelled as cowards and opportunists. You don't win respect and converts that way, you just lose face and friends.

from reading his web site. Or not opposed to the idea.

By my standards, that puts him squarely in the camp of most DUers.

Me, I'm not for impeachment either...until we get majorities in the house and Senate. Then, impeach the motherfucker.

But, the current context is censure. The same political logic applies to both. The Dems would, of course, lose a vote on censure as surely as one on impeachment. But, they might gain some self-respect, and a real Party-line censure fight would show some spinal development and probably gain at least as much (and probably more) than might be lost by goading the Republicans. And, that overshadowing issue -- how can the Dems win if they don't oppose -- isn't addressed by Josh.

Marshall and the Dem leadership need to reconsider this. If they want to win, they need to define themselves as opposed to unwarranted domestic spying, and show they are willing to put that point to a vote of censure against Bush.

...not quite as funny.

"You never cut funny." -- King Kaiser

A cranial rectoscopy would be what, a look at the skull-resident rectum? I think removing the head from the ass is much funnier. :silly:

While you may be literally correct, in context you really don't want the "audience" to picture any procedure at all, not really. You just want them to get the head/ass notion in general. And you don't want to "lead them into the joke" via the, well, less pleasant entry point.

In addition, the word cranial is more lyrical, you could easily sing it. Just another spoonful of sugar to help the thermometer go... uh, well you get the point.

And anyway Ks and hard Cs are just funny sounds, according to Phil Foster. (No one knows why because Phil died in 1985, before he could explain what he meant.(

But rest assured. We have teams of highly trained professionals working on these posts. The technology behind the Variable Word Placement simulators alone is staggering.

I don't really understand it all myself. I've learned to just try to enjoy.

-

...I have just as many hard c/k sounds in rectal craniumectomy as you do in cranial rectsoscopy. And who says you can't sing craniumectomy? Hell, I think it's so readily adaptable to music, you could fart it, in tune, with just a little practice.

...you've buried the lead, so to speak.

Craniumectomy is quite lyrical and funny (more so if it meant something more specific).

But you've "pre-emptively" stuck it where the sun don't shine. See?

--

GW just reiterated his commitment to it.

(I just can't resist keeping this up; I was laughing my ass off at a couple of your previous responses. Very dry, very funny.)

:bounce::freak:

What they're actually saying is that preemption is a legitimate indoctrine. Which the WH has designated via Executive Order to be a "term of art" for illegitimate doctrine**.

No, preemption is just naked unprovoked agression. A horrific violation of any standard of moral decency.

And, worst of all -- unfunny.

--
** I think there may have even been a few typos in some reports that added to the confusion. (It's not that they're lying or trying to hide anything. It's just that the "pre 9-11 term" tended to soften the poll numbers.)

But nobody really reads those things anyway. The euphemedia's job is to merely count the pages and dutifully report the number -- 49 for this last report. Hardly a number one could refute without seriously damaging the war effort.

--

Great either way, but I like this technogibberish better!

He'll come around when he opens his eyes and notices it is dark.... :)

Shrubeenie would never have had to start a war or do warrantless wiretapping or seel off ourports or anything else if Clinton had just done it. Damned Clinton. His presidency was nothing but trouble. Peace, prosperity what hogwash.
History books will someday tell the truth about how Clinton's legacy was fully responsible for all of Bushie's problems. Then, then you'll all be sorry you ever picked on the little feller.

Josh is upholding the vapor center of the donut and has yet to see that it doesn't taste great or provide more filling. He believes the center of the donut is the most important part.... :rofl:

He's sounding very DLC on this...

:eyes: