Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

You knew there would be a huge heapin' helpin' of stupidity coming out of the Teabagger's march on Washington, yes you did! And you knew it would be even more stupider than misoverestimating the size of the crowd and then lying endlessly about doing so. In fact, it was this stupid:

Making matters slightly more embarrassing, several conservative sites ran with a purported aerial photo of the protest, which seemed to show a full Washington Mall. The picture seemed odd -- the first clue was that the National Museum of the American Indian did not appear in the photo -- and was later exposed as a shot from the Promise Keepers' rally from 1997.

That's pretty fucking stupid right there.

What to do, what to do? Admit that ABC and CNN never reported millions and millions of idiots had stumbled into D.C. to protest - um, stuff? No, of course not! When backed into a corner, always blame the librul media!

Wingnuts, with egg on their faces, blame media.

I’ve been talking all night to people who are there and involved. The 2 million number was generated by the media, but truly seems to be a gross inflation of what is there.

Damn liberal media. Always exaggerating the size of right-wing protests, just to discredit wingnuts.

You might think being a dumb-as-dirt wingnut is a thankless task, but the Billionaires for Wealthcare were out in force to show their support for those fighting for billionaires' right to screw ordinary people over. Be sure to check out the heartwarming photos at the link - especially if you're feeling a bit blue and need a good giggle.

Here's another good laugh: Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum thinks he may run for President:

Rick Santorum's presidential ambitions probably should have ended in November 2006, when he lost his Senate re-election bid by a humiliating 18 points. The far-right lawmaker had made some behind-the-scenes moves before the campaign about a run for the White House, but those efforts quickly ended when Santorum was roundly rejected by his home-state voters.

They were not, however, ended permanently. Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum is apparently taking the possibility of a presidential campaign seriously.

Speaking to a room full of prominent US Catholic leaders Friday night, Senator Rick Santorum was challenged to run for President. Responding to a room already thick with applause, Santorum revealed that he was indeed "thinking about it" but asked for prayers and detailed his thinking on the matter. [...]

The last consideration in favor of his run was on the practical level. He said: "Six months ago I would not have spent ten seconds on your question, but it's not six months ago. I see that, I hate to be calculating, but I see that 2012 is not just throwing somebody out to be eaten, but it's a real opportunity for success."

Assessing President Obama's chances of re-election just seven months into his first year in office strikes me as a mistake, but Santorum's comments suggest he's actually considering this. Indeed, in three weeks, Santorum will be traveling to Iowa for some events, as part of a pre-exploratory exploring.

This should be fun. The man's not quite the Disasta from Alaska, but he's close enough. Observe as a Republican (yes, I know) explains why Santorum would be "very, very dangerous for America:"

Santorum once grouped gay sex with incest, polygamy, and bestiality, and he believes consenting adults have no constitutional right to privacy when it comes to sexual behavior. He is a strong supporter of teaching intelligent design. He is anti-gay, anti-immigrant—supporting the most extreme anti-immigrant legislative proposals though he is the son of an Italian immigrant father—antiabortion, and anti-anything that smacks of progressive thinking, centrism, bipartisanship, or moderation in the Republican Party.

No, really, that came right from a Republican. Mark McKinnon, in fact. The man who worked for Bush and McCain. He is, apparently, one of those libertarian-type Republicans who got chucked out of the main house by the culture warriors, neocons, and other assorted insane elements of the party. Poor Mark. The modern Cons may make a Democrat of him yet.

Still not ready to quit laughing? Well, then, here's Glenn Beck's latest conspiracy theory:

How crazy is Glenn Beck? His latest loopy conspiracy theory is that the levees in New Orleans were allowed to fail intentionally to destroy records of evil deeds by ACORN and SEIU. And it's all tied to Van Jones in this weird little scenario of madness he's spun. This is breathtaking in its utter stupidity.

The man's definitely not well.

And, finally, Kay Bailey Hutchison, apparently deciding it's time to get down and play with the crazy people, endorses the right's hysterical czar lies:

On July 30, the Washington Post gave House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) space to write an op-ed railing on President Obama’s “virtual army of ‘czars.’” Today, the Washington Post allowed Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison to write a similar op-ed complaining that these czars set “a dangerous precedent that undermines the Constitution’s guarantee of separated powers.” Hutchison tries to make these officials seem shady and mysterious by noting that many of them don’t even have “formal titles”:

Nearly 250 years later, these critical lines of separation are being obscured by a new class of federal officials. A few of them have formal titles, but most are simply known as “czars.” They hold unknown levels of power over broad swaths of policy. Under the Obama administration, we have an unprecedented 32 czar posts (a few of which it has yet to fill), including a “car czar,” a “pay czar” and an “information czar.” There are also czars assigned to some of the broadest and most consequential topics in policy, including health care, terrorism, economics and key geographic regions.

In fact, ALL of these officials have formal titles. For example, Hutchison cites Van Jones, the “green jobs czar.” But Jones had the title of Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise, and Innovation at the Council on Environmental Quality. The only person Obama has referred to as a czar is “drug czar” Gil Kerlikowske, whose official title is Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. (Additionally, “drug czar” was a term that existed long before the Obama administration.)

She hasn't released her little list, but I can just about guarantee that when she does, people that she was present to vote for or against will be on it. So we must come to one of three conclusions: either she's a lying sack of shit pandering to the worst elements of the Con base, she's defining "unaccountable" as "anyone Obama didn't personally bring to me to vet, because as we all know the rest of the Senate doesn't count," or she's a psycho fucktard who's forgotten all about her part of the confirmation process.

I clicked the link and read the whole of her op-ed. I feel dirty and violated. I'm going to go take a bath in bleach now....