Three Views of Cons

It seems that with the advent of the Dems, our Con politicians have gone completely off the deep end. My imagination failed me. I didn't think they could get much worse than they'd been during the Bush era, but where they've failed on all other levels, as sideshow freaks they are an unqualified success.

Case in point:

Right winger talkers are just losing their minds over the fact that Obama is now President. I know they lack humor so could it be that they actually think this is funny?

Discussing President Obama's signing of the economic recovery bill at a ceremony in Denver, 630 KHOW-AM's Peter Boyles on his February 18 program repeatedly referred to one of the ceremony attendees, U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Denver), as "Vagina DeJet" and "Vagina DeGette."

And a Republican state Sen joins in the conversation like it's no big deal. He should apologize immediately.

CALDARA: When Schultheis speaks, it's a real room-clearer.

BOYLES: As soon as Schultheis spoke, I said, "It's time to fire up the bike." But then I went out to the museum. And, you know, I went over to Fox News, and all the media trucks were over there on the north side. Guys, there wasn't 75 people there.

SCHULTHEIS: That's what I hear. Hardly anybody.

BOYLES: I mean, now there were 250 of, like, Vagina DeJet was in there, and other people, they were the 250 selected, hand-picked -- Federico Peña was in the front row. I was shocked to see that.

The state senator in question is Dave Schultheis, whose priorities can be discerned here. He makes not a peep of protest at Boyles's assinine, locker-room misogyny. I wonder how he'd react if a talk radio host started calling him Penis Schultheis? Would he believe that's an appropriate way to reference a lawmaker?

I somehow doubt it. Cons are infamous for the double-standard.

A couple of things got me thinking differently about them, though. Rather than just a bunch of batshit insane fucktards, what if they're just miserable pooches? Do they need not censure or antipsychotics, but the kind ministrations of a dog whisperer instead?

The Dog Whisperer never fails a dog. He helps owners become "pack leaders" who learn how to make their dogs into relaxed, contented animals. Cesar Millan demonstrates to each owner how their dog responds to calm, positive, assertive energy. Some dog transformations are miraculous – but these are miracles you can believe in because they take place before your very eyes.

Obama’s efforts at bipartisanship remind me of the failing efforts of dog owners before Cesar Millan shows up. They assume that their dogs are like humans and will respond to the right combination of love, understanding, and operant conditioning.

But dogs don’t think like humans. Dogs are pack animals. Dogs instinctively look for the leader of the pack, and they follow. If no leader emerges, they become the leader. They do what their instincts tell them a leader does. No amount of love or understanding or even rewards and punishment changes this. They simply must have a leader to follow or they will continue to misbehave, even to the point that they get themselves killed. Republicans in Congress have been allowed to let their instincts run wild - "tax cuts, more tax cuts"..."this is a spending bill!"...etc. They followed their leader over cliff after cliff for eight years. They don't know any better. Left to their instincts they will take us over more.

Obama has to become the leader of the pack. He has to stop tolerating bad behavior on the part of Republicans in the House and Senate. He has to take over their territory on the issues, and deliver sharp corrections to get their attention when they get out of line.

This makes an intriguing sort of sense. I hadn't thought of them this way before, but the Cons do remarkably resemble the pair of evil Westies veternarian James Herriot once wrote about, dogs who delighted in causing people misery and pain because their owners had left them leaderless. They weren't inherently mean or evil, they just didn't know what to do, and they were miserable trying to be their own leaders.

Then again, while the Cons resemble miserable mutts, they also resemble - well, cons:

The only upside I can see to any of this is that political science students attempting to grasp the nature of conservatism need no longer waste any more time studying Friedman, Oakeshott or any of the other great minds of wingerdom. They need only read the latest e-mails from Nigeria, and everything they need to know about conservatism will become crystal-clear.

That's just the denouement to Steven Hart's excellent case, which really must be read in its entirety.

So, my darlings, after perusing the above, which possibility resonates for you? Do Cons strike you as clueless jackasses, undisciplined dogs, or scam artists?