Dennis Hastert Thinks You Are Stupid

Languishing! Goddamn campaign is languishing! We need a shot inna arm! Hear me, boys? Inna goddamn ARM! Election held tomorra, that sonofabitch Stokes would win it in a walk!

Well he’s the re-form candidate, Daddy.


Well people like that re-form. Maybe we should get us some.

I’ll reform you, you soft-headed sonofabitch! How we gonna run reform when we’re the damn incumbent!?

“O Brother, Where Art Thou?”

Now that, thanks to Jack Abramoff, the GOP has been exposed to the American public as the criminal organization it is, how does the Republican leadership respond?

“>“Hastert leads GOP push for lobbying reforms,” reads the headline in the Sun-Times.

I mean, really, does anyone fall for this shit?

This is a Republican scandal and yet the GOP thinks that you, the American voter, is so stupid that you will vote Republican in the mid-term elections in order for the Republicans to “clean house.”

This is the political equivalent of the fox guarding the henhouse, or to use a metaphor which is perhaps more apropos to a scandal in which : this is a case of the inmates running the asylum.

Hastert has been the Speaker of the House since 1999. Now that he desperately needs to put some distance between himself and Abramoff, as well as between Abramoff and the GOP at large, he boldly steps up to the plate to offer “reform.” Does he really expect the average American to believe that the Abramoff scandal is the first he’s heard of GOP corruption in connection with lobbyists? If he was unaware, he is simply incompetent. If he was aware and did nothing to enact reform and punish the offenders, then he is an accomplice.

Which is it Denny?

4 Comments so far

  1. Gabe (unregistered) on January 18th, 2006 @ 4:50 pm

    Does the phrase “guilty until proven innocent” ring any bells with you? You’ve already started the witch hunt and Hillary the head witch is ready to join in.

    Apparently, she referred to the house of representatives as being “run like a plantation” while speaking to an African-American congregation in Harlem. You talk about the American public falling for this shit and yet you refuse to look at your own party members. Can she possibly pander anymore to the American public?

    By the way, your link doesn’t work (at least not for me).

  2. nikkos (unregistered) on January 18th, 2006 @ 5:07 pm


    Here’s the link:

    Perhaps you should read the article before assuming my guilt, eh? :).

    That being said, Abramoff pled guilty. That is a fact and not an opinion. Now, a jury may find him innocent and acquit him but you must admit it would be a bizarre legal strategy to plead guilty if you were in fact innocent. The fact that the man pled guilty of his own free will allows me to assume he is guilty. How is that wrong?

    Conversely, if he had pled innocent your point would hold- the governement says he’s guilty, he says he is not- let’s presume innocence and let the courts decide. However, this is not what occurred in this case.

    As for Hillary, her choice of words was, I think, designed to be inflammatory to a certain degree. Was it pandering? To a certain extent, yes.

    However this is the crucial difference that renders your analogy moot: when Hillary stands before a crowd and decries the way the House is run, she does so as someone that is not in the majority, and thus, is not responsible for the current scandal. She’s a member of the Senate and not the House anyways.

    Hastert, on the other hand, is in the majority, and holds the highest position in the House. Thus, when he then turns around and says “what we need is re-form!” forgive me if I find it less than believable.

    In any case, thanks for answering my question “does anyone fall for this shit?”

  3. Gabe (unregistered) on January 20th, 2006 @ 11:21 am

    My comment about guilt was not directed at you other than to say that I think you’re jumping to conclusions about the entire GOP before the trials have even started. Yes, he has pled guilty. That doesn’t mean every single member needs to be drawn and quartered because they are a member of the party (guilt by association). I wasn’t referring to Abramoff with the comment.

    Yes, I read the article (now that you posted an updated link).

    I don’t think my analogy of Hillary is rendered moot considering they both are pandering to certain crowds. You even admitted that she’s pandering (Was it pandering? To a certain extent, yes.) Just because she’s part of the senate and not the house doesn’t mean that correlations can’t be drawn and while we’re talking about correlations, Hillary is “pandering” for the highest seat in the land (and arguably the world).

    I never said that I fell for “this shit”. I was simply setting you straight about convicting someone (or an entire group) based on your political bias.

  4. nikkos (unregistered) on January 20th, 2006 @ 1:19 pm

    OK, let’s cut to the chase:
    Do you believe Hastert is credible when he talks about reforming the House?

    That’s really the essence of my post, rhetorical flourishes aside.

    My point is that no, I do not find his program of reform to be credible, for the reasons stated above.

    If you do find his proposed reform to be credible, please tell me why you think so. In my opinion, he has very little credibility.

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.