More Utterly Non-Shocking Conservative Wankery

So, an article in today’s Washington Times highlights the utter douchebaggery going on in Congress.  Shortly put,

More than a dozen Republican lawmakers, while denouncing the stimulus to the media and their constituents, privately sent letters to just one of the federal government’s many agencies seeking stimulus money for home-state pork projects.

Now, bear in mind that these are but a few letters sent to just one fed agency (USDA) and discovered via FOIA.  I can only  imagine how many other such letters were sent to DOE, DOT, DHS…

I know I am probably not the only one to be utterly unsurprised by this hypocritical bullshit. Not even to hear dear Lameass Alexander is amongst this esteemed group.  Certainly not shocked to see good ol’ Joe “YOU LIE!” Wilson is on the list. These are, after all, politicians.  If they were cheesy glittering vampires, then money is their pasty-faced virgin.

I was somewhat surprised, however, to read that these secret money grabs were totally in line with a virulent anti-stimulus stance.  And of course we can thank Joe Wilson for clarifying the issue for us:

“Congressman Wilson’s position on the stimulus bill is consistent,” said spokeswoman Pepper Pennington. She said Mr. Wilson opposed the stimulus as a “misguided spending bill,” but once it passed, he wanted to make sure South Carolina residents “receive their share of the pie.”

So Screamy Joe has just effectively pointed out for us the real-life application of the ‘Can’t Lose’ objection.  What this means is that an attorney can rant and scream and rail against something that is actually factually or procedurally or legally correct – thus the client thinks that he/she is REALLY getting their money’s worth, what with all the ranting/screaming/railing, despite the fact that the ranting attorney (and judge and bailiff and clerks and indeed all attorneys in the court) knows full fucking well that:
  1. there is only ONE possible outcome,
  2. nothing you do will change (1),
  3. but because your enemy supports (1), you must oppose it,
  4. which also means you have to convince your constituency (or client) that (1) is EVIL and you are GOOD for opposing (1), when in reality
  5. your constituents (clients) will actually benefit from (1), and
  6. they will receive these benefits no matter how big of jackass you are.

Have Your Cake and Action Figure, Too...

Advertisements