Haven't written in here in a while, being out of town for a while and busy and stuff, but I'm feeling the need for a good rant, so get ready!

The ProJo's Edward Achorn is such a one-note pinhead. He actually thought (or pretended to) that his little column and/or pressure generated thereby could get three "courageous" House members to flip and vote for separation of powers. If he had any brains at all, what he should have done in his column was note which legislators had already announced their retirements the previous week and told their constituents to put pressure on them. That might have made more of an impact since it was people who obstensibly have nothing to lose. But instead he uses a shotgun approach and hopes that voters will vote, months later, based strictly on this issue. That ain't how it works, dumbass! Not to mention that with larger districts, it will be much harder for a challenger to win, so there probably won't be more competitive races like he supposes there will be.

Oh, and a brief riff on this. The cretinous Phil West supposed the same thing in his support for downsizing and also poo-pooed the idea that downsizing would lower the percentage of women and minorities. Well, I did a count of women in the House the other day and of who I know is retiring. Almost a third of the women currently in the House will be retiring, largely thanks to downsizing. And of those left, obviously they are not all assured victory in the next election--in fact, I can think of three off the top of my currently tired head who are probably in trouble. And are there any strong women challengers out there for House seats? I've not heard of any (well, okay, one actually, but she's a horrible person, and I hope her former constituents remember that.) Thank you, Phil West, for ensuring that the legislature will be even more male and white than it currently is, and that those left will be even more beholden to the leadership for saving them in redistricting.

Anyway, back to Slow Eddie, as Phillppe and Jorge used to call him. I have absolutely no evidence to back this up, but I personally think some of the legislators that he hates managed to manipulate them into doing their dirty work. To wit: in a recent column, he pours accolades on a couple of legislators who were supposedly being punished by Leadership for not supporting separation of powers (their public accusation, certainly not any detective work on his part or the ProJo's.) The thing is that I know for a fact that one of the two has an extremely difficult race ahead and that in general Leadership likes this person and has rewarded this person over the years. (I personally think this person is one of the finest legislators there myself, which is why I'm being coy.) Anyway, what better publicity for this legislator than to be known to be in the bad graces of Leadership for supporting separation of powers? The press conference generated the news article, and then Achorn took up their cause too in his column. Now, I could be wrong about how this transpired, and I do have no evidence--I admit all of this. But I think that is what happened, and if it is, I applaud them for manipulating him so well!

I've heard a rumor that Flaherty may be the next majority leader. Goddess help us if so. I wonder if this can somehow be derailed in the same way. I'm thinking about it. Even if not, Judiciary will probably be hopeless. Goddess help us all.

The Rhode Island Republicans are total morons. I don't even mean in the same sense that national Republicans are--the latter are unfortunately more evil than stupid. But here, the bottom line is that they don't stand for anything. When one of the most liberal members of the House left the Democratic party because (what else?) redistricting gave her an impossible primary, the House Republicans crowed loudly and said they would warmly welcome her. She didn't take them up on their offer, but their wooing her just proves they don't stand for anything at all. If they would just bite the bullet and say they were socially moderate to liberal and fiscally conservative (unlike the national party), I could have some respect for that. But instead, they are so desperate for candidates, any candidates, that they end up running crackpots for the big races. Case in point: the clown they've found to run against Jack Reed. That guy even called Reed an ultra-liberal, which proves the party learned nothing from the last time Reed ran. At the time, the national Republicans were blanketing the state with soft-money ads decrying "ultra-liberal Jack Reed." As a result, his poll numbers went through the roof. His Republican opponent begged the nationals to quit running the ads, but they ignored her, which showed how much respect there is between the party nationally and locally. Losers. Anyway, the Republicans whine and whine about how the state needs to elect more Republicans, and then they run morons who are unelectable. And the ones who do get into office act like bratty children half the time (even the ones that are better people than that--they just think they must for some reason.) So they whine that they can't muster the votes to sustain a veto. The thing is, if they combined their numbers with the dissident faction of House Democrats, they are very close the the magic number and really only need to swing a few votes. But they don't bother to try that. I guess the issues aren't really important, just the opportunity to whine. This, Mr. Achorn, is why there is no effective opposition party--they stand for nothing and don't think strategically. And the crackpots they try to run, who would be totally marketable in, say, Mississippi, but not here are another reason there is no opposition party. We are a liberal state, and we are not buying what they are selling. We elect Republicans like the Chafees, not like Trent Lott. Mr. Achorn, if the latter is the kind that you long for, you really do need to go back to New Hampshire. As I write this, I totally acknowledge that there are some good Republicans here, in the Chafee mold, and locally I'll be supporting two of them (passively--my volunteer-type support will go to better friends who also need it more.) But I stand by what I wrote about them as a group.

Pride starts in a few hours. I'm so sick of never being able to just enjoy it anymore. Actually I'm sick of a lot of things along the same line (like whiny board members who never show up and then make uninformed criticisms in semi-public instead of actually asking questions in private where they might get a helpful answer.) Anyway, as usual, it will be my other half and me "porked again," as her aunt would say. Maybe soon things will change. I sure hope so. I don't mind some of the work, but having to do all of it is soul-killing. Am working some for a campaign right now and am almost astonished by how appreciative they are. I know it's partly their job, but I guess my point is that while I do get some thanks, it's not often enough. Actually, thinking about it more, I get thanks for the big things, but not for the "little" things that are so deadly to me, like completing almost an entire mailing myself multiple times. No one ever thanks me for that. Meanwhile, I walk around and scribble notes in a binder for a couple hours, and this campaign is falling all over itself to thank me. It's nice but sad for what it says about how I'm treated in the main organization. I'm also sick of people insisting on catering to the lowest common denominator, but that goes without saying and is true in soooo many arenas.

There's more to rant about or even just ruminate about, but I'm tired. At least this is a good start to get writing here again even if no one reads it or, if they do, understands what in the world I'm talking about. It's all about blowing off steam. Still thinking that someone needs to do a local mediawatch blog, and perhaps someone will. Perhaps.
posted by Mad Anne Rackham at 3:36 AM