Republicon Governor Pardon's Murderers

By Douglas Stanglin, USA TODAY

Updated 1h 23m ago

An uproar over some of the 200 pardons -- including murder cases -- granted by outgoing Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour has prompted some lawmakers to propose bills to curb pardons by future governors, The Clarion-Ledger reports.

Relatives of crime victims had voiced outrage Monday after it was revealed that the Republican governor, on his last days in office, had pardoned four convicted murderers. Those men had worked at the governor's mansion as part of a prison trusty program.

A list released by the Mississippi Secretary of State's Office on Tuesday showed some of the convicted killers were pardoned, while others were given medical or conditional releases. Barbour had released five other convicted killers in 2008, the Associated Press reports.

"My reaction was like everybody else's: It's like, what? It's shocking, just by the sheer number," said House Minority Leader Bobby Moak, a Democrat. "It takes people aback."
Barbour has declined to comment on the pardons.
Among those pardoned were Earnest Scott Favre, older brother of retired NFL quarterback Brett Favre, convicted of driving drunk and causing his friend's death.
Two bills sponsored by Rep. David Baria, a Democrat, would require a public hearing before a felony offender can be pardoned and will preclude those convicted of capital murder from serving as trusties at the governor's mansion.
It is a custom in Mississippi for governors to pardon those trusties who serve at the historic residence.
"There is no doubt that, with everything swirling around right now, hopefully, the Legislature has a better opportunity to pass this legislation," Moak said.

Republicon Taliban

Rick Perry, now there's a good conservative for you.

He just loves the fetus, I mean, he loves the fetus.

He'd do anything for a fetus.

He'd send armed agents into your bedroom to see when you and your wife were making love, then have them watch you for 9 months to make sure nothing happened to that fetus.

But he hates the child.

Like most conservatives, he believes life begins at conception and ends at birth.

He executed 240 men in three years, and someone asked, “Knowing that 10% of the people you executed are probably innocent, does it bother you that you may have put innocent people to death?”

“Not at all.” He responded to thunderous Republicon applause.

He's a typical Republicon.

Just not as good a speaker as some of he others,

He's not sophisticated.

It's been said that conservatives are like the Taliban.

Conservatives and the Taliban both hate change.

The Taliban yearns fondly for the good old days of the 8^th century, when you could hack your wife's head off with nary a peep from the do-gooders.

Republicons yearn for the good old days of the fifties, when blacks, women and gays “knew their place.”

They both believe in using force to have others obey their version of morality.

The Taliban throws acid in girls faces to prevent them from going to school, Republicons toss children into violent, crime ridden prisons for using drugs that they, the conservatives disapprove of.

When asked about women's equality Perry quipped. “I ain't never met a woman who could whoop me in a fight.”

I guess he hasn't met Katie Holmes.

She would “treat him ugly.”

Then there's Mittens Romney.

He's like Fatah to Perry's Hamas.

He signed into law once of the most progressive health bills around, and has spent the rest of his time denying it.

Perry comes right out and says ”People who don't have health care and get sick should just die.”

Then there is Santorum, on health care; “poor people who don't have health care need to cut down on luxury items, like cell phones and cars.”

Does that remind anyone of Gingrich' suggestion that poor black kids should scrub the urinals of their more fortunate classmates, to learn how to make money other than being a pimp or drug dealer?

Well, Bachmann and her gay husband are gone.

That should give “Doctor” Bachmann a lot more time to “discipline” the gay barbarians.

To the pizza guy I say, “Blame yourself.”

Ron Paul is done, it's not that he's a racist, it's that he was too vocal about it, and hence, unelectable.

Also, he'd put a lot of Republicon owned defense contractors out of business.

Now if Rick Perry was talking sense, he would just be an inarticulate guy making sense.

Instead, he's an inarticulate guy that wants to turn America into a vast, fascist, corporate state.

That's the Republicon dream.

Believe it.

Most of my readers are too young to remember Barry Goldwater.

He was a conservative that loved America.

That used to be a part of being a conservative.

Bill Buckley was a conservative, as well, but he likewise loved America.

Now, I didn't agree with most of Buckley's views, I thought he was just wrong, but not malicious, like todays gaggle of “conservatives”.

As Barry Goldwater's daughter said recently, “If my Dad saw these people who call themselves conservatives today, he wouldn't be able to stop puking..”

LAST MINUTE EFFORT TO DRAFT JESUS AS GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE FAILS

LAST MINUTE EFFORT TO DRAFT JESUS AS GOP PRESIDIENTIAL CANDIDATE FAILS

by R J Shulman

WASHINGTON – (PTSD News Service) – Desperate to field a viable presidential candidate, in an otherwise field of dismal or freakish wannabes, several Republican Party leaders planned to reach out to Jesus to get him to carry the GOP presidential banner for 2012.  However, before Jesus could even be asked, he was rejected by a poll of the Republican party rank and file for being too liberal.

“Our polls showed that Jesus could do very well against Obama in the general election, especially as we could frame the choice as being between Christ and the Anti-Christ,” said Jib Cutter, a GOP research analyst, “but the problem is that Jesus gave out free healthcare by healing the sick, acted like a socialist by wanting everyone to help the poor, and was a dark-skinned fellow of the Jewish persuasion, all things that will be soundly rejected by the religious right.”

“We needed the Anti-Romney and Anti-Obama all rolled into one candidate and thought Jesus could fill those shoes,” said Wayne Church, a GOP spokesperson, “but the guy doesn’t wear shoes, but instead walks around in hippie sandals.”   Rex Barker, another GOP strategist said it was just as well that Jesus proved not to be Christian enough, “There really wasn’t enough time for Jesus to be fully vetted.  Heck we don’t even know what the ‘H’ stands for that’s his middle name.”

Others thought Jesus would be weak on the war on terror.  “When Jesus should be shock and awing the enemy, he might turn the other cheek,” said Connie Langdale, of the Maryland Republican Party.  “While he doesn’t have the kind of marriage and divorce baggage of someone like Gingrich,” said Bub Sacklane, a Wichita, Kansas Republican, “he has been known to hang out with prostitutes.  Plus I would have felt a bit more comfortable if Jesus had turned the water to beer instead of wine, because wine is just too darn French and gay.”

Why Do Conservatives Hate America?

Posted on Oct 12, 2009

White House / Pete Souza

Conservatives may not like Obama, but they ought to salute his achievement. It is, after all, an honor for the country as well as the man.

By Eugene Robinson

Somebody explain this to me: The president of the United States wins the Nobel Peace Prize, and Rush Limbaugh joins with the Taliban in bitterly denouncing the award? Glenn Beck has a conniption fit and demands that the president not accept what may be the world’s most prestigious honor? The Republican National Committee issues a statement sarcastically mocking our nation’s leader—elected, you will recall, by a healthy majority—as unworthy of such recognition?

Why, oh why, do conservatives hate America so?

OK, I know, it’s just some conservatives who’ve been exhibiting what they, in a different context, surely would describe as “Hanoi Jane” behavior. Others who haven’t taken leave of their political senses—and are familiar with the concept of manners—responded to President Barack Obama’s unexpected award with equanimity and even grace. Sen. John McCain, for example, offered his good-natured congratulations.

Some of Obama’s most strident critics, however, just can’t give it a rest. They use words like farce and travesty, as if there were always universal agreement on the worthiness of the Nobel peace laureate. Does anyone remember the controversy over Henry Kissinger or Yasser Arafat or F.W. de Klerk?

The problem for the addlebrained Obama-rejectionists is that the president, as far as they are concerned, couldn’t possibly do anything right, and thus is unworthy of any conceivable recognition. If Obama ended all hunger in the world, they’d accuse him of promoting obesity. If he solved global warming, they’d complain it was getting chilly. If he got Mahmoud Abbas and Benjamin Netanyahu to join him around the campfire in a chorus of “Kumbaya,” the rejectionists would claim that his singing was out of tune.

 

Let the rejectionists fulminate and sputter until they wear themselves out. Politically, they’re only bashing themselves. As Republican leaders—except RNC Chairman Michael Steele—are beginning to realize, “I’m With the Taliban Against America” is not likely to be a winning slogan.

More interesting, but no less goofy, is the recommendation—by otherwise sane commentators—that Obama should decline the award. This is ridiculous.

If the award just represented the political views of a handful of left-leaning, self-satisfied Norwegian Eurocrats, as some critics have charged, then it wouldn’t matter whether Obama won it or not. But of course it means much more. The Nobel Peace Prize, irrespective of the idiosyncratic process that selects its winner, is universally recognized as a stamp of the world’s approval. For an American president to reject such a token of approval would be absurdly counterproductive.

Obama has shifted U.S. foreign policy away from George W. Bush’s cowboy ethos toward a multilateral approach. He envisions, and has begun to implement, a different kind of U.S. leadership that I believe is more likely to succeed in an interconnected, multipolar world. That this shift is being noticed and recognized is to Obama’s credit—and to our country’s.

The peace prize comes as Obama is in the midst reviewing war strategy in Afghanistan. Some advocates for sending additional troops are complaining—and some advocates of a pullout are hoping—that the award may somehow limit the president’s options. But the prize is nothing more than an acknowledgment of what Obama has been saying and doing thus far. He hardly needs to be reminded of his philosophy of international relations—or that he once called Afghanistan a “war of necessity.” Threading that needle is not made any easier or harder by the Nobel committee’s decision.

What I really don’t understand is the view that somehow there’s a tremendous downside for Obama in the award. It raises expectations, these commentators say—as if expectations of any American president, and especially this one, were not already sky-high. Obama has taken on the rescue of the U.S. financial system and the long-term restructuring of the economy. He has launched historic initiatives to revolutionize health care, energy policy and the way we educate our children. He said flatly during the campaign that he wants to be remembered as a transformational president.

The only reasonable response is McCain’s: Congratulations. Nothing, not even the Nobel Peace Prize, can set the bar any higher for President Obama than he’s already set it for himself.
   
Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com.   
© 2009, Washington Post Writers Group