But at least I didn't have to do much political reading today in order to find some delicious dumbfuckery. There's so much ripe, juicy, low-hanging fruit dangling out there it's hard to resist plucking it all.
Let us begin with the best graphic ever:
People pounding the pavement against these dumbfucks can print this out, paste it to their clipboards, and just hold it up silently for voters' consideration. It's simple, elegant, and speaks far louder than words.
Moving on to Senate Con stupidity, which has gone beyond extraordinary and is blowing past mind-numbing. Now they're threatening the passage of the START treaty, willingly throwing America's credibility on nuclear issues down the shitter and tossing a (perhaps nuclear) grenade after it. Why?
Congratulations, America. The citizens of large swathes of this once-great nation managed to elect a cohort of the most irresponsible idiots possible to serve as Senators, and this is the result. What really horrifies me is that some liberals think it would be a good idea to allow more of this sort of fucktard to be elected in order to teach our centrist Democratic overlords a lesson.In this instance, the main GOP complaint is that the Obama administration has called for spending $80 billion over the next decade on modernizing nuclear weapons facilities, and $100 billion on strategic bombers and long-range missiles that carry nuclear warheads.
Republicans are arguing that this isn't enough, which is why they won't let the treaty advance from committee.
In other words, the most important treaty this Congress will consider is stuck because Republicans want to increase spending.
Sigh.
And just think, this fall, if voters in Nevada don't show some sense, we could end up with Sen. Sharron Angle. After this recent outburst, I can hardly wait for her floor speeches:
Sharron Angle (R), the extremist Senate candidate in Nevada, has her own "unique" take on the First Commandment, which may be the single craziest thing she's ever said. Jon Ralston reports on recent comments the lunatic candidate made on a Christian radio talk-show."And these programs that you mentioned -- that Obama has going with Reid and Pelosi pushing them forward -- are all entitlement programs built to make government our God. And that's really what's happening in this country is a violation of the First Commandment. We have become a country entrenched in idolatry, and that idolatry is the dependency upon our government. We're supposed to depend upon God for our protection and our provision and for our daily bread, not for our government."This mindset will further reinforce to some that religion infuses everything Angle believes but also might explain her hostility to government programs, believing essentially they are produced by a false God.Referencing her Senate campaign, Angle added, "I need warriors to stand beside me. You know, this is a war of ideology, a war of thoughts and of faith. And we need people to really stand for faith and trust, not hope and change."
[snip]The Las Vegas Sun recently reported that Angle, who said she's running because God told her to, embraces a radical church-state philosophy that "parallels that of a religious political movement -- Christian Reconstructionism -- seeking to return American civil society to biblical law."
If you're unfamiliar with Christian Reconstructionism, it's quite literally analogous to the Taliban and radical proponents of Sharia law -- just as they want to replace secular law with laws based on their interpretation of the Quran, Reconstructionists want to replace secular law in the U.S. with their interpretation of the Christian Bible. In this vision, a radical take on Scripture would take the place of our Constitution.
Some of my liberal friends may want to tell me that a fundie freak like this is harmless, even if set loose in the Senate, and it's far more important to make sure Dems know progressives are very unhappy with them. I'd just like to advise them to save their breath, as I highly doubt I shall be able to believe them.
With Nevada experiencing one of the highest rates of unemployment in the nation, common sense tells you Nevada voters would be naturally inclined to vote for change, and even an organ grinder's monkey could beat Harry Reid - which explains why this lunatic had an 11 point lead over Reid up until just a few weeks ago.
ReplyDeleteWell now it looks like Nevadans have staggered away from the roulette table long enough to smell the gin and tonic, and Harry Reid is now out front by a couple of points. Looks to me like the GOP should have gone with the monkey...
ReplyDeleteWhat really horrifies me is that some liberals think it would be a good idea to allow more of this sort of fucktard to be elected in order to teach our centrist Democratic overlords a lesson.
I recognize that this isn't a great plan, but it's a plan that has a chance of working. It is a plan that recognizes human motivation and the realities of politics, in contrast to the apparent plan of continuing to vote the people into office who have been screwing us.
So, here's the challenge - if we're so fucking stupid, then you should be able to come up with a better plan. Work on it and get back to us.
Meanwhile, I'm perfectly happy to live with divided government for a couple of years. That alone will be an improvement. If it works out that the Democrats finally realize they can't win by shafting the working population, then all the better. If not, we'll do it again.
Agree, Chris. The GOP went with the worst choice. But here's the thing - the Tea Party has shown that it will take its votes elsewhere if the Republicans don't please them. That gives them power. And depending which poll you read, she may still have a chance of winning. OTOH, progressives won't take their votes elsewhere, and so they don't matter to the Democrats.
ReplyDeleteThat's the basic conundrum here, and when someone comes up with a plan that isn't abjectly opposite what will work, I'm happy to go along with it.
So far, all I hear out of those folks is how stupid I am. That's not an argument that impresses me, for some reason.
@Cujo: I didn't call you stupid. I said I was horrified. But since even this offended you, might I suggest you don't dish it out if you can't take it.
ReplyDeleteAs far as better plans, that will have to be left to better thinkers than I. But let me put it to you this way: I don't think allowing Cons to win will work the way you think it will. It will reward Con insanity and leave Dems with the impression they need to be very much further to the right in order to win. And if you think divided government will save us, just read back over all those posts you've written where you bash Dems for being cowardly con artists just waiting for the opportunity to fuck us all, then try to tell me with a straight face they'll stand up against Cons.
I look at your plan, and only two words come to mind: "Backfire" and "Disaster."
Excuse me if I voice that opinion, which I already know you don't like, and excuse me if I get a little pissed off when someone who so happily calls people like me "drooling morons" gets all huffy when I merely say their plan for progressives horrifies me.
I like you and value your friendship, and I hope we don't lose that precious bond over this, but I'm done letting you vent your spleen without answering.
As I mentioned, Dana, it's not a great plan. The drift you're speaking of, though, has been happening anyway, despite our voting for these guys. Do you think that is somehow going to magically stop? If so, how?
ReplyDeleteI've made clear why I think the plan of continually enabling the same people won't work. It hasn't worked, and it isn't going to work in the future. It rewards failure - there's a very basic flaw there.
The only thing that politicians will universally respect is if you have the ability and will to take away their power. That's what you don't seem to be grasping here. The nation's politics are drifting right because conservatives understand and use this, and progressives don't.
And in the end, we're going to inevitably continue our rightward drift under your plan, because there's nothing to stop it. I haven't just challenged you to come up with a plan. Nearly every time I have this argument now, I challenge people to come up with a better one, because there are risks to doing what I suggest.
BTW, Democratic politicians, and the national party, have internal polls. If progressives don't vote for them, they'll know it. What they choose to do about it, as we agree, is open to question.
The one thing that is certain is that if the Democrats continue on their current course, they'll lose big in 2012, because by then no one will be interested in excuses about how Republicans are nasty obstructionists. They'll ask why Democrats never seemed to obstruct anything that ought to have been when they were in the minority, assuming they're interested in history at all. The economy will be as bad is it is now, maybe worse. We will have lived with 15 - 20 percent unemployment for four years, with no hope of that changing. And the Dems will lose the White House as well as Congress.
In short,
Your plan == no chance
My plan == some chance
So, like everyone else who pulls out this conventional wisdom and tries to imply that what I propose is crazy despite having offered no credible alternative, you're one slightly better plan away from not having this argument.
Oh, and by the way, that quote you found was partly a reaction to other comments I'd seen right here, among other places. It's not the first time you'd implied that what I want to do is either stupid or infantile. The solution you offered in that link hasn't worked so far. Bill Halter's candidacy was a case in point - it was a perfect political storm for a more progressive candidate, but he lost when the conservative Democrats threw everything they could behind Blanche Lincoln. They apparently didn't even mind that Lincoln has less of a chance against the GOP candidate than Halter did. (They weren't reluctant to do something "stupid" in order to preserve their power.) Sure, Joe Sestak won, but he's another centrist. He just wasn't as bad as Arlen Specter. Both campaigns cost millions. So where's the money and ground game going to come for, say, ten more effective primary efforts next time?
I don't mean to just "send a message" or do some sort of infantile lashing out, as you've implied. I mean to make progressives count in the national political equation. Right now, our coefficient is zero.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteApologies for all the previous repeat comments. Apparently, my blathering was blowing up the Blogspot comments software.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, we're at an impasse for the simple reason that I can't stomach dumping this country into the hands of the terminally insane just to pull the Dems back to the left. I'll be happy to apply the tough love when the Republicans can present a tolerable alternative. Not before.
ReplyDeleteI understand where you're coming from, and I understand your frustrations. I share many of them. We just have fundamentally different ways of looking at the situation.
I'm sorry you've felt I was directly calling you stupid or insane. That wasn't my intent. I'm not lumping progressives and liberals into the same group as the Tea Partiers. But I'm not going to sit back and pretend that your strategy is palatable to me when it's not. And I've already told you why you shouldn't be demanding a better strategy from me - that's not my forte.
In the meantime, I've bitten my tongue until it bled while you've spent the last several months implying I have no brain. I've censored myself to avoid provoking you in more situations you'll ever know, because I love and respect you. It appears this was the wrong strategy to pursue, because you're taking my posts as a provocation anyway.
Please understand, as I try to understand (and hope is true) that political disagreements do not equal personal attacks.