Last night's State of the Union was surprisingly inoffensive. Maybe it's that I was playing with the internet throughout, but the President's delivery was okay, much of the rhetoric seemed reasonable, and even the standing O's weren't any worse than expected.

I did find the dyed fingers pretty irking, but perhaps that's because of my job: after spending a year or two dealing with House of Reps staffers, I find virtually every non-anthrax-receiving activity that congressmen perform intensely irritating.

The renewed support for the FMA was a little surprising, but c'mon now -- our nation's gay citizens should surely have been able to read the writing on the wall by now. They've had months and months to wrap up their committed, loving relationships and begin settling into their new, more patriotic lives of loneliness and psychological repression. No more dilly dallying! And no, that is not a euphemism for anything.

But while there weren't any revelations of the "Mars, bitches!" sort unveiled last night, I did have a personal epiphany: if you're ever going to be on TV, ask to be seated next to the guy who looks like he's about to have a heart attack. I get that the blue fingers were a symbolic reference to the Iraqi election -- but what was Speaker Hastert's skin supposed to symbolize? American Heart Month? Clothing, Mr. Hastert -- it's supposed to be red clothing. But no harm done -- I suppose it still served to raise awareness of cardiac disease. And with that sly, asymmetric grin and healthy pallor, I'm sure Dick Cheney stole a few more schoolgirls' hearts.

god. i really, truly have tried to avoid politics in all forms lately, honestly (i even watched "under the tuscan sun" last night instead of subjecting myself to the SOTU), but stuff like this creates such a visceral reaction that i am basically just puking everywhere:

House Republican leaders tightened their control over the ethics committee yesterday by ousting its independent-minded chairman, appointing a replacement who is close to them and adding two new members who donated to the legal defense fund of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.).

Republican officials have spent months taking steps to ensure DeLay's political survival in case he is indicted by a Texas grand jury investigating political fundraising, and House leadership aides said they needed to have the ethics committee controlled by lawmakers they can trust.

Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.), who clashed with DeLay so often that they barely spoke and was considered wayward by other leaders, was replaced yesterday with Rep. Richard Hastings (R-Wash.). Hastings has carried out other sensitive leadership assignments and is known as a favorite of Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), who made the decision.

Hefley said in an interview yesterday that he believes he was removed because he was too independent. He said there is "a bad perception out there that there was a purge in the committee and that people were put in that would protect our side of the aisle better than I did."

...Republican leaders put on the committee two new members who have donated to a DeLay legal fund: Rep. Lamar S. Smith (R-Tex..) and Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.). Smith gave DeLay $10,000, making him among the seven largest donors among congressional members, and Cole gave $5,000, according to an analysis of disclosure records by the watchdog group Public Citizen.

and here:

As for Hulshof, John Feehery, a spokesman for Hastert, said there was no connection to the DeLay matter and that the speaker simply wanted fresh faces on the panel.

“It wasn’t really removing him,” said Feehery. “It was more like relieving him of his duty. The Speaker doesn’t like to have people who are such talented legislators like him have to spend so much time on ethics.”

...But Hulshof said he had specifically asked Hastert to reappoint him to the panel and noted that two other GOP members who were allowed to stay—Reps. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., and Judy Biggert, R-Ill.—have served on the committee longer than he has.

this desipte the argument from hastert that hulshof "had served the mandatory number of terms allowed without a waiver of House rules."

do they even try to cover up this shit in a believable manner anymore?

i read these articles, then immediately clicked over to bull moose blog, because i knew he'd be on it like a fly to honey. and he is:

"The very same chamber where the President eloquently hailed the virtues of freedom was the site where Republicans were replacing the rule of law with the rule of the Bugman! And those very brave Republicans had the audacity to display their ink stained fingers as if they had risked all to defend the virtues of democracy! Why these courageous warriors would walk across a field of land mines to get a campaign check from a K Street lobbyist."

damn straight.