02 March, 2009

Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

Someone's apparently dumped an extra dose of insanity in the right's water supply today. Geez.

Where to begin...

Back when I worked for a printing company, we once received an order for gift certificates from a place called the Moonlight Bunny Ranch. It's back on my mind today, as well as on the minds of certain overheated members of Congress:
Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) took the lies to a new level today when he — with the help of an enthusiastic Fox News’s Megyn Kelly — declared that the 2009 omnibus bill included funding for a train traveling straight from “Disney” to Nevada’s most famous brothel, the Moonlight Bunny Ranch:

KELLY: It’s a super railroad, of sorts — a line that will deliver customers straight from Disney, we kid you not, to the doorstep of the moonlight bunny ranch brothel in Nevada. I say, to the moonlight Bunny Ranch brothel in Nevada. So should your tax dollars be paying for these kinds of projects? […]

FRANKS: The majority leader of the U.S. Senate, Harry Reid has fought for this publicly and is committed to this project, even in the face of criticism. … If this is something that is truly the priority of the majority leader of the US senate, it’s pretty late in the day, Megyn.


ThinkProgress was unable to find such an earmark in the omnibus spending bill. When asked to point to the specific provision, Franks’ office would only tell ThinkProgress to contact Reid’s office.

Reid’s office confirmed that Franks is referring to a proposal to refurbish a historic railroad line between Gold Hill, NV, and Carson City — hardly a direct line from L.A. to the “doorstep” of a brothel. Considering there’s no funding for high-speed rail between L.A. and Las Vegas — despite Republicans’ frenetic assertions to the contrary — the idea of a Disneyland-Bunny Ranch supertrain is far-fetched, to say the least.

Rep. Franks is apparently confusing his fantasies with reality.

We've seen a tremendous amount of burning stupid from the Republicon party lately. You know things have reached a truly pathetic point when you have these two battling it out for the supreme leadership of a party that includes such lights as Michele Bachmann, Trent Franks, John Boehner, and all of our other favorite nutcases:
Leadership vacuums can lead to some genuine unpleasantness for a political party.

Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele is taking issue with the notion that Rush Limbaugh is the de facto leader of the GOP, calling the conservative radio talk show host an entertainer whose comments can be ugly.

Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said in an interview with CNN that he, rather than Limbaugh, is "the de facto leader of the Republican Party."

And Steele described Limbaugh as a performer.

"Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh's whole thing is entertainment," Steele said. "Yes, it is incendiary. Yes, it is ugly."

Specifically, when CNN's D.L. Hughley referred to Limbaugh as "the de facto leader of the Republican Party," Steele quickly interjected, "No, he's not. I'm the de facto leader of the Republican Party."

Dear, oh dear. It's the battle of the clueless. This won't be pretty.

The bizarre antics of the right aren't, of course, confined to nationally-known pols and pundits. Check out Virginia's state house:
Not Larry Sabato notes that this weekend, when discussing the economic recovery package, Virginia state delegate Robert Marshall (R) compared the bill to slavery, claiming that it will put generations of Virginians in “ankle bracelets”:
MARSHALL:That is as much a chain of slavery around our children. … It is as much a chain as ankle bracelets were as to African-Americans in the 1860s in this state. It’s just invisible. But it is a chain of death that we’re not going to escape.

Wow. Just... wow. Talk about your overheated rhetoric and inapt comparisons sure to invite a backlash and extreme ridicule.

The insanity is growing at an exponential rate:
Over the last few days, Tom DeLay, Rick Santorum, and Michelle Malkin have joined the Limbaugh-inspired group of conservatives who are publicly hoping that President Obama fails. Yesterday afternoon, RedState's Erick Erickson kept the ball rolling with an item headlined, "I Too Want Barack Obama to Fail," encouraging other conservatives to rally behind the campaign to undermine the president.

Join the RedState Army of Activists and lets [sic] work to make sure Barack Obama fails at destroying liberty and freedom:

I want Barack Obama to fail and I want to help ensure he does.

If Barack Obama is successful in implementing his stated agenda, America will fail and the American dream will die for millions.

We already know Barack Obama's economic policy will fail, but it will hurt millions of hard working Americans.

I will join the RedState Army of Activists and fight for freedom by working to undermine Barack Obama's agenda and helping him fail.Thank [sic] you for your interest in the I WANT BARACK OBAMA TO FAIL.

Let's put aside how ironic it is to hear those who believe they're patriotic actively rooting against the nation's elected leadership. And by all means, let's certainly overlook the kind of response this would have elicited if, in the midst of multiple international crises, the left put together an organized campaign encouraging Americans to "help" George W. Bush "fail."

Instead, let's note the politics. Ben Smith, highlighting Erickson's post, said, "[S]omewhere, Brad Woodhouse and Rahm Emanuel are smiling."

Grinning from ear-to-ear, I expect. It's nice when you don't have to do any hard work to make your opponents and their supporters sound like outrageous fucking idiots.

And, as the cherry on top of our Stupid Sundae, let's have a look at the anti-earmark crowd:

According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) requested $118 million in earmarks in fiscal year 2008. On Fox News Sunday yesterday, host Chris Wallace pressed Kyl about his earmarks, saying it is an example of how Republicans have “lost credibility on the issue of spending restraint.” “Who are you to lecture the Democrats on spending?” asked Wallace.

Kyl deflected the question, saying that they weren’t earmarks because earmarks “have a specific definition..."

Why, Jon, I don't think it matters what your definition is. Especially not when you've already admitted you're full of shit:
In the past, Kyl has admitted that his earmark criticism is “symbolic” and that he complains about “wasteful Washington spending” for political reasons because “the consultants who look at the polls tell us that if there’s anything that drives American taxpayers crazy it’s that phrase ‘wasteful Washington spending.’”

So, I have a suggestion for you, my dear lying sack of shit: Shut the fuck up.

Or, like the rest of the right wing, just hurry up and implode under your dumbfuckery already.

No comments: