TBT: The Brutal Truth

Democratic governor of Virgina Tim Kaine has been chosen to give the rebuttal to Bush's State of The Union address. Kos likes it. Huffington loathes it and recommeds John Murtha which Jane and Amato approve of. Where I stand? Huffington makes the better argument against Tim Kaine:

On the same day that Osama Bin Laden's chilling warnings make it Red Alert clear that Bush's obsession with Iraq has not made us safer here at home -- and, indeed, has caused us to take our eye off the real enemy -- the Dems decide that the charge against Bush shouldn't be led by someone who can forcefully articulate why the GOP is not the party that can best keep us safe, but by someone whose only claim to fame is that he carried a red state.

Talk about clueless.

Of course, any win for the Democratic party is a good win and I'm as happy as a pig in shit that Kaine took Virginia from the Republican "ownership society" but that's not enough for him in my book. She then lobbies for Sen. John Murtha:

I know I've said this before and before, but the Democrats will never become the majority party until they can prove to the American people that they have a better plan for keeping us safe. And that means having someone like Jack Murtha give the State of the Union response -- someone with the authority to make the point that, on every level, Iraq is the wrong priority. And that the hundreds of billions already spent on Iraq (and the countless billions to come) would be better spent shoring up our ports, roadways, railways, securing our nuclear installations and chemical plants, and properly supporting our first responders.

Oh, Arianna, how quickly we forget the Al Gore speech. No doubt; she is right that the Democrats need to convince us they've got a better plan on security but Al Gore's speech proves that they also need to drive home the point that we don't have to treat our Constitution as if it were a roll of Charmin in order to get it done. Within Republican circles, there's a belligerant talking point they use in their rabid defense of Bush's gross violation of the law with "Project Shamrock II" by equating our dear Constitution to that of a "suicide pact" instead of the very fabric of what made this country survive and carry on for the past two centuries. Barrack Obama could articulate this message very well but I'm not keen on Obama, either.

As much as I love and respect John Murtha, I've got to tell like it is and call 'em as I see them -- I'm sick and tired of seeing and hearing him. Jane, Amato, and Huffington may not like it, but that's the way I feel at the moment. Why? Because John Murtha hasn't really defended himself against the Swift Boating being done to him by the rabid rightwingers. Pundits like Michael Reagan have called for the heads of those speaking out on the war. So, let me cut through the bullshit and make my point: Unless Sen. Murtha calls up Joe Wilson and asks him if he still has that noose he wore about his neck when he walked the floors of Saddam Hussein's palaces in the early 1990s, Murtha isn't really standing up like a Marine should in the face of despotic President whom has done nothing more than carried on the legacy of butchering of Hussein in the guise of this War on Terror and I know plenty of Marines. He isn't, to borrow the expression of R. Lee Ermey, sounding off like he has a pair.

Marines stick together like luggage. If you smear one, you've smeared them all, and every Marine I know personally has told me -- despite either agreeing or disagreeing with Murtha -- they would do or say anything to shut assholes like Micheal Reagan down. I guarantee you that if John Murtha had drapped a noose around his neck, applied a bulleye sticker to his forehead, and walked the Senate floor just like Joe Wilson walked the the floors of Hussein's palaces a little over a decade ago, the media would go ballistic and every USMC base would be at a standstill. There would be journalists camped out on the steps of the Hill waiting for a moment to talk to Murtha. They would ask him, "Senator, explain the noose and bulleye for us", and Murtha can say, "If Micheal Reagan believes the President should have me tried and then shot or hung for treason, I've got five words for the both of them: YOU KNOW WHERE I SLEEP!"

That is a response worthy and expected from a 10-year marriage let alone a 27-year Marine veteran. Every USMC base would erupt in a deafening chorus of "HOORAH!" and FreeRepublic would be inaccessible because several routers would have meltdowns from the rush of all the 101st Fighting Keyboardists climbing over each other to be the first one to let the foam fly. When it eventually does come back online, them fucking chickenhawks would be smacking each other around instead of Murtha. Using the term "unhinged" to describe the state of prime time punditry would be a gross understatement and the only person that would be hung or shot would be one that would have to tell Bush the truth: "Mr. President, we just lost a good portion of the military vote," but I won't mention names (*cough*TURDBLOSSOM!*ahem*).

Granted, other bloggers may say that I'm being very disengenous to single out Sen. Murtha for not really making a stand and that would have some merit -- they know as well as I that there was once a time where the entire Democratic party in general would seriously consider donning a noose and bullseye proudly and in open defiance to the eliminationist "try them for treason" rhetoric of the ReThugs. But that's all the more reason why I feel compelled to single out Murtha -- it's got to start somewhere; why not a Marine veteran?

In the end, who gives the rebuttal probably isn't going to ammount to a hill of beans. The Democratic party has sported a consistancy of complacency rather than courage over the last 5 years, thus I'm more apt to prepare for further consistancy in that regard instead of being pleasantly surprized by the emergence of consistancy in the latter.