BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 3 – Iraq’s Shiite and Kurdish leaders quietly adopted new rules over the weekend that will make it virtually impossible for the constitution to fail in the upcoming national referendum, prompting Sunni Arabs and a range of independent political figures to complain that the vote was being fixed.

Under the new rules, the constitution will fail only if two-thirds of all registered voters – rather than two-thirds of all those actually casting ballots – reject it in at least 3 of Iraq’s 18 provinces.

Okay. I see a reference to “Calvin Ball” on the blogosphere. But to me, this looks more like:

Boxer: “Gee, Napoleon. I thought the rule on the barn wall said that the Constitution would fail if two thirds of ballots cast in 3 of Iraq’s provinces rejected it .

Napoleon: No. It’s always said “registered voters”, regardless of whether anyone votes or not. Go look at the barn wall and see for yourself!

(Scritched writing on the newly added line due to space limitations.)

Actually, come to think of it, a person can defend the “scandal plagued Clinton” because of the nature of the scandal that ensnared him — that whole “It’s all about Sex” routine — may make it the principled position — regardless of political opinions as a whole. (Never mind in the real world, people tend to always “stand by their man” toward the bitter end.)

There was this man named Earl Williams from nearby Mabton who used the Letters to the Editor page of the local weekly paper as his soapbox platform. He was something on the order of a John Bircher — complaining of the government here, there, and everywhere, the treacherous Janet Reno, and the Socialism that is ensnaring this nation.

And he also complained about the Jeremiad that the Republican Party was carrying on against Bill Clinton and his sex life. Occasionally it almost looked like he was a Bill Clinton fan. I guess this was a sign that he wasn’t a party hack after all.

For his part, the newly double-indicted Tom DeLay has said:

Now you’re going to think I’m crazy. Our opponents, the Democrats, have no agenda. They’re the party of “no.” They just come up here and say, “No, no, no, no, no.”

And we’re doing a bold, aggressive agenda and have destroyed their credibility with the American people. That’s the makings of a very big election.

The joke is on someone there. A multitude of targets, actually. Him, us, tweedle dum, and him again.

I shuffled through the quotations I’ve gradually placed on the sidebar. It occurs to me that I’m missing some obvious points of departure, ie:

“As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don’t know we don’t know.” — Donald Rumsfeld, Feb. 12, 2002.

And a few of the more prescient Bushisms that escape my mind right now.

I used to be enamored by this quote:

“America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher of the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and
vindicator only of her own. Should the United States adventure into other lands, she might become the dictatress of the world. She would no longer be the ruler of her own spirit.” — John Quincy Adams

But I soured on it for a number of reasons. #1: In full context, the speech offered a number of qualifiers, and indeed Adams’s political counsel offers some countering opinions. #2, and more importantly: Since when do I celebrate the presidency of the supposed magnificent John Quincy Adams? Aside from this quotation, does anyone know anything about John Quincy Adams? (I know he lost the popular vote.)

And then there’s this quotation:

“Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has ‘closed’, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. AND I AM CAESAR.”

Which is attributed to either Julius Caesar or William Shakespeare. If you don’t remember it from your high school reading of Julius Caesar, it’s probably because it is not from there — nor would it even properly fit the story. I have no clue where it comes from.

Other than that… I can’t come up with a clean copy of Warren Harding’s self-deprecating comments on his presidential abilities, along the lines of “I’m really not fit to be president.” A statement that probably, through acknowledgement of his own limitations, catupults himn to the Top 10 Presidents List…

Floating through the usenet posts once, I ran into a question regarding the scandal-enthroned Bill Clinton: Considering that he has betrayed so much of what Liberals say they believe in, and removed various Great Society and New Deal functions, why do you Liberals defend him? The answer that was forthcoming: He’s the best we can get while still winning. This chestnut wrapped up with a Thanks for the honesty.

I could add a few more replies to the answer. If you feel like calling Bill Clinton “the Best Republican President we ever had”, (or “The Best Republican President since Eisenhower” or “since Lincoln” — I have just gone through the words spoken by Ralph Nader, Jim Hightower, and Michael Moore right there), at least we have that qualifier to meet out against that dreaded “Republican”… ie: “Best”. You’re in sort of competent hands, as third ways are being created to bridge over newly cemented as second ways that were the former third ways. OR… appointing somebody that is not simply a political friend to head of FEMA was a welcome change in policy (and a historical abberiation.)

And so we arrive at the new Administration and unencumbered Republican Leadership. And I can just as easily shift the question around.

Tom DeLay, George W Bush, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and the whole lot of them. How exactly do they measure up to the promises of 1980 and 1994? Excuse me if all I see is money and political decisions being moved in the direction of political coffers, and a few plays against various cultural issues.

Simply the thrill of being on a winning side.