Why I'm Voting For Clinton

thepilot.com

It’s absolutely true that the recent DNC e-mail hack by Russian “state actors” revealed that Democratic National Committee staffers favored Hillary Clinton.

But, hey, Bernie Sanders and his supporters (like me) knew that going in. We knew the odds were stacked against us, just like they are any time anyone tries to change a hidebound, inherently cautious organization like the Democratic Party.

Frankly, political pessimist that I am, I’m amazed that the progressives in the Democratic Party have accomplished as much as they have, and believe me, they accomplished a lot.

They proved that you don’t have to run away from liberal values — the party platform reflects that. They proved that you can raise serious cash from small contributions, if you have a populist message that appeals to people other than millionaires and billionaires.

It is also true that ousted DNC chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was awful as a party leader. I’ve been saying that for years. She should have been canned after the debacle of the 2014 midterms.

It’s true as well that giving Wasserman Schultz any position, even an “honorary” one with no staff, no budget, and no defined duties, sent a terrible message. The only thing Debbie Wasserman Schultz should have gotten was a coach class plane ticket back to Florida and a handshake, and I’m being generous with the handshake.

Hillary Clinton’s opponents are always looking for ammunition to use against her; she doesn’t have to back the ammo truck up to the RNC and offer to unload it for them.

But you know what? I’m voting for Clinton anyway, and so should you. Here are some reasons why.

First, the hackers who hit the DNC were almost certainly Russian. As one U.S. official told CBS News, they left “all kinds of fingerprints” on their work that were common to other hacks and attempted hacks by the Russian government. The Russians didn’t do the same to the Republicans.

Now, consider this: Do we want to elect as U.S. president the candidate whom Vladimir Putin prefers?

Tuesday, Comrade Trump even called on his new besties in the Russian intelligence services to find Hillary Clinton’s “missing” e-mails. He now claims he was joking — after denying that on Twitter for two days. Say what you like about Clinton (and I have), I don’t recall her ever inviting the Russians to commit cyber attacks on Americans, even in jest.

Then there’s the matter of the two parties’ conventions.

It may surprise you that, back in 1992, I was on the fence between voting Republican and Democrat. I thought Bush the Elder had made the right call in the first Gulf War, and I had my doubts about this Clinton guy. Two things knocked me off that fence: the Republican and Democratic conventions.

The Republican convention took the politics of resentment, suspicion, and divisiveness and cranked the volume to 11. Featured speakers included RNC Chairman Rich Bond, telling the attendees, “We are America; they are not America,” and Pat Buchanan railing about “culture war.” I quickly decided I wanted nothing to do with these people.

The Democrats, on the other hand, were uplifting, upbeat, and focused on the future. When their convention ended with a packed arena dancing to “Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow,” I was sold.

And so it is again this year. The Republican Convention was one speaker after another delivering the message, “OMG! WE’RE ALL GONNA DIEEEEEE!” and that only one man can save us — Fearless Leader Donald J. Trump.

That final speech, with Trump raging at us for 73 minutes under his own name in letters 20 feet high, proved once again that, for all the problems I might have with Hillary Clinton, this man can never be allowed to get his stubby little fingers anywhere near the nuclear codes or the Supreme Court.

As for the Democrats, they started off in such a fractious mood that Bernie Sanders supporters actually booed Bernie himself. But by the end, absolutely amazing speeches by, among others, First Lady Michelle Obama, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, and of course, Sanders himself had everyone cheering (and some of us wishing Booker or Mrs. Obama were running).

Then the convention pivoted to the kind of positive message that history has showed wins elections. We’ve seen it before: “Morning in America.” “A Shining City on a Hill.” “I believe in a place called Hope.” “Yes We Can.”

Now, we have “America is already great, America is already strong” and “Let’s be stronger together, and look forward with courage and confidence.”

For all my misgivings about Hillary Clinton, that’s a vision I can get behind a lot more than I can one of a grim, dystopian America that only an angry Russian-backed authoritarian can fix — if only we’ll give him absolute power.

No thanks, Comrade Trump.

THE GOBSHITES SPEAK: 

Of course, the reader comments on the Pilot contained the usual parade of foam-flecked Clinton hatred, include this from the predictably brain-dead "Lenny Bo": ...I predicted last week that Dusty would fawn all over her.

I suppose that, to a drooling Brownshirt like "Lenny Bo," anything less that "AAAGH AAAAGH KILL HILLARY! KILL! KILL!" would be considered "fawning."  But that's wingnuttery for you. 

And, as always, we see that the Trumpkins don't even bother to tell us what's wrong about my assessment of their guy or what they like about him. It's all about attacking Clinton. 

Reader Mail, plus More Hilarious Wingnuttery

So this letter ran today in the Pilot: 

Dusty Rhoades’ column in the Dec 7 Pilot disturbed me. To say that the prosecutor in the Ferguson case “threw” the case or deliberately lost it for the state involves a level of cynicism that is difficult to take.

Certainly, the prosecutor could have gotten an indictment if he “wanted” to. And just as certainly, there were political pressures for him to do just that. But Mr. Wilson is not a ham sandwich, of popular grand jury lore.

No he was not. But the rest of us would have been treated like one, which was part of the point. 

Imagine for just a minute, even if you are as arrogant as Mr. Rhoades and are able to reach conclusions based on a superficial view of the evidence from newspapers and TV reports, that the prosecutor who did see all the evidence had a good-faith belief that the actions of Darren Wilson may have been justified.

Wrong. I actually read the transcripts. And I'm betting I read more of them than Mr. Muller. if actually doing your research is your idea of "arrogance," then guilty as charged. 

A prosecutor represents the state in an adversarial system, but he is not a pure advocate and must believe that the evidence on review supports a criminal conviction. Can you imagine a prosecutor asking a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of a criminal offense when the prosecutor himself has significant doubts?

Yeah, actually, I can, because I live in the real world. 

But, understanding correctly the highly charged nature of this case, rather than deciding himself to not proceed further against Wilson, which prosecutors do all the time, he presented the case to a grand jury as a check on the use of his discretion.

Again, a break which no one but someone like Wilson would get. 

Yes, doing so and presenting evidence on both sides was highly unusual.

And thus, not "equal justice." 

 But viewed in this way, the prosecutor was hardly giving Wilson a “break,” and just maybe was trying to do justice in the best way he could.

Justice which the average Joe (or Michael) would not have access to. 

I acknowledge that I don’t know where the truth lies, but I respect the process and don’t share the view that “justice” requires a particular result here.

William Muller, Pinehurst

"Justice" does not require a particular result. It does, however, require a fair trial, not a sham. 

At least Mr, Muller was (mostly) polite. But then of course, our old friend "Francis" needed to weigh in in the comments with his usual brand of wingnut fuckwittery: 

More surprising than the article you have commented on is the fact you succeeded in having the Pilot post it, you have openly criticized, and even called arrogant one of those who John protects from any unflattering remarks, not often will you read honest appraisals on the individual you mentioned, even this comment may have gone too far, a very thin skinned critic who lashes out at others with no restrictions.

Get that? The guy with over 1100 posts on The Pilot website, the vast majority of them vicious personal attacks on me (including one that said I should die a slow and painful death from Ebola) is whining that The Pilot is "protecting me" from "unflattering remarks." Not only that, he's doing so in response to a letter disputing one of my columns that's on there as a "Top Letter to the Editor." And as for no restrictions, let's not forget that he's still allowed to post and I'm not. 

 Classic wingnuttery: using a public forum to complain endlessly, week after week, about how that forum is violating their right to free speech. 

Lo, Even As I Have Said It, So It Has Come To Pass

I ended the last column thusly:

Normally, when I pose these sorts of questions to my fellow Americans, I get attempts to change the subject or angry denunciations of President Obama and/or “libs,” “leftists,” “statists” or “Obama-bots,” none of which have any connection to the question asked.

And so far, here are the answers from the usual gang of chattering monkeys that make up the conservative commentariat at the Pilot: 

From "fugitiveguy" who comments every week, while claiming he doesn't read the column: 

I actually read the article in its entirety. This guy sure asks a lot of questions with the angle of defending his king and deity. To the majority of those questions I would just answer I don't know. I am glad I don't have the responsibility although I think I am just about as qualified to run the show as the president. I have seen recipes longer than his resume. But I digest [sic] so therefore I must go now.

I'm not sure if "But I digest" is a malapropism in an attempt at humor, or this person really doesn't know the language. "Fugitiveguy's" posts are usually so dimwitted, I suspect the latter. 

From "Pappy", another constant commenter: 

Mr Rhoades...wow, sure is a lot of questions !!

Before we can start a conversation, can I assume that you think your king handled each situation to the 12 questions / paragraphs correctly ??

This "king" bullshit is a constant refrain among these pathological liars, who claim, despite all the evidence, that I'm a mindless sycophant who never criticizes the President. (See my columns on getting involved in Syria and Libya in the first place for a refutation). 

From "OceanGypsy": 

Great way for the columnist to try to deflect attention from just a few of the many, crazy bad failures of this administration by using directed questions which deflect attention from the key failures of each, then piling them all on top of each other so that no one in their right mind will bother to try to tackle any of them. But hey, he's a lawyer after all.

Simple answer. If you truly read up on and objectively study each issue brought up you will find the answer to each. And quite possibly become a Libertarian too.

Ah. A Libertarian. The douchey, condescending tone should have clued me in. But, you'll notice, not even an attempt to answer one question, just another version of the lame old "look it up yourself" dodge that inept Internet debaters use when they're asked to back their bullshit up.

I am pleased to announce, I did actually get one attempt to actually address one question:

Dusty, 

Let’s take a crack at your first question . “If you think President Obama’s weakness in Syria is what led Putin’s annexation of Crimea, what  do you think we should have done in Syria? 

If he (the president) was not willing  to take action he should have just kept his mouth shut. 

It was Obama’s bluster that led the world & Putin to see that Obama continued to be a  fleckless blow hard. When he stated that Assad’s use of chemical weapons would cross a red line that would have consequences and then nothing happened it proved it. Putin knows that Obama will do do nothing no matter what happens. 

Obama’s mantra is shoot your mouth off, carry a small stick and then try to change the subject.

My answer:

Actually, at one point, I was in agreement with you about the "red line." You can look it up.

But then it actually worked and Assad agreed to give up his chemical weapons, rather than be bombed. So the "red line" actually worked. And I had to admit I was wrong. 

Would you rather he still have those weapons? Because if President Obama had "kept his mouth shut", he'd still have them and would still be using them.

Thanks for reading. 

I'll let you know if I get a response. But I predict the same "you'll never criticize your king Obama" bushwa. These idiots are nothing if not predictable. 

The Well Truly Has No Bottom

You know, after my last column, I didn't think there was anyone who would be low enough to rise to defend the late Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. When even the usual gang of haters fell silent (the ones who show up every week to tell me how uninteresting they find the column they read every week), I thought there would finally be someone so vile, even the wingnuttiest of the wingnuts wouldn't throw in their lot with them.

I was wrong.

Thank you, ******* **** of Carthage, NC for your letter (yes, an actual mailed letter) that proved to me there actually are people in my own town who will defend picketing the funerals of slain children, murder victims, and soldiers fallen in the service of their country, all in the name of hate and in the name of God. Thank you, ******* **** of Carthage, NC for proving that the well of hate, ignorance and abject stupidity truly has no bottom.

Dusty

PS: Thank you especially for attaching a copy of the column to your note, because I certainly would not have known what I'd written otherwise. Also thanks for attaching the obit from Time Magazine with the highlighted sentence that you think proves your point, but which actually does nothing of the sort. If you hadn't done that, I might not have realized I was dealing with a complete dimwit.

Yours in Christ, D

(Updated to remove the actual name, since this sort of idiot would use it to whine and play the martyr.)

Letters, Oh I Get Letters

Today in The Pilot:

Dusty Rhoades’ petulant column attacking Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney (June 19) displays a prepubescent proclivity (for name-calling), when rational, cogent analysis would be the most powerful way to pose one’s argument.

Indeed, character assassination is the last refuge of a mind sadly bereft of ideas.

Dixie Chapman

Pinehurst

I always love the people who write in, excoriating a satirical column for not being serious enough.

Hey, Dixie, I do cogent analysis and argument, but for a hell of a lot more money that The Pilot pays me. For these prices, snark and mockery are what you get.

In conclusion, let us remember the immortal words of Sgt. Hulka:

Letters, Oh I Get Letters

From the letters section of The Pilot:

Since Dusty Rhoades is such an authority on almost all subjects large and small, I wonder if he could explain why it's bad for Gov. Blagojevich of Illinois (and under impeachment) to offer to sell the senatorial seat of President Obama, but it's OK for ex-President Clinton to have sold a pardon to criminal Mark Rich for a donation to the Clinton Foundation? Bill Rose

A number of responses spring to mind, and I can't decide which would be best:

1. Gee, I don't know, Bill. Can you point out to me when I actually said that about the Rich pardon?

2. Gee, I don't know, Bill. Maybe you should ask Marc Rich's lawyer: Scooter Libby.

3. Gee, I don't know, Bill. Maybe you ought to ask the two special prosecutors the Republican Congress appointed to look into the matter , neither of whom found any grounds to indict, probably because emails uncovered during the course of the investigation revealed that the donation to the Clinton Library (by Rich's ex-wife, not Rich) was provided a full year before Scooter Libby requested that she approach Clinton for a pardon.

4. Bill, you do realize that Bill Clinton isn't President anymore, right?

5. I'm not real sure where you're going with this, Bill. Are you trying to say Blagojevich ought to walk?


Feel free to make your own suggestions.

It's a purely academic exercise, since the powers that be at the paper have "suggested" I not respond to these goobers in the column because we don't want to 'lower the discourse to their level." This naturally raises the question of why they're printing the damn letters in the first place if they lower the level of discourse, but never mind.

Of course the reason the Rich pardon is now being dredged up over and over is because it's really the only thing the wingnuts have to try to derail the confirmation of Eric Holder as Barack Obama's Attorney General, since Holder was the Deputy AG who was vetting the pardon requests for Clinton. And that effort really has nothing to do with Holder's qualifications, or even with Marc Rich. It's just more obstructionism by the party that got their asses kicked in the recent election.

If the Republicans do go there, however, I hope Holder and the Dems will be smart enough to shove wingnut hero Scooter Libby's name into at least every other sentence of their responses. I'd like to see Scooter brought up often enough in the context of the Holder vote that it becomes a drinking game. "Every time you hear 'Scooter' or 'Libby' you have to take a shot!"

I mean, what have they got to lose? Republican votes? As the recent dispaly of partisanship by the House GOP over the stimulus package shows, you can give them all the bipartisanhip you want and they'll still vote along party lines against you.

Holder may have made an egregious mistake in the Rich pardon, but at least he doesn't try to argue with a straight face that torturing people is okay.