Mocking Conservatives Hurts Liberalism

And speaking of loser progressives who think we lose no matter what we do, what is up with the belief that we lose when we mock Sarah Palin?  Apparently, it now makes people more credible if you make fun of them for being stupid, as evidenced by comments made after White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs wrote a list on his hand to get a few laughs from the media.  And while most liberals were amused by it, we were still treated to the same loser liberals who insist that this hurts us.

Here's a sample:

"No, Gibbs is the one jumping the shark by giving Palin attention and thus credibility. I'd much rather they start calling her the leader of the Republican Party like they did Rush Limbaugh."

"This is so sad. Gibbs should use his precious air-time to present and defend the Administration's policy agenda as best he can and to respond to GOPers' talking points, not to poke fun at a politician however stupid she is, which is the job of political columnists, bloggers and political comedians."

"This just feeds into Sarah's "I'm a victim" and "They're afraid of me" schtick. She's best ignored."

"It was a mistake for gibbs to make fun of palin publicly. The entire administration seems to be tone deaf about the mood of the country. Not only was it undignified for someone from the president's office to make fun of her, or anyone, but taking on a popular figure like palin in such a childish way won't improve the Dems' image among any group. They should leave the snark to Stewart, Colbert, and The Onion."

"This is a waste of everyones time. Focus on the reason and direction of where the WH is headed. Leave the party of NO with their talking points."

"Gibbs poking Palin with a stick doesn't move any agenda forward. He isn't using his little bit of media time for constructive use (unless he can lump it in the same breath so it can't be made into a sound bite). And trying to rebuff the noise machine is also a waste of time. The majority is supposed to LEAD, not respond to all the fake issues."

Yes, apparently things are so dire for us that Gibbs can't take thirty seconds in a one hour press conference to make a joke on a topic that everyone's joking about.  Not only is this unnecessary, but it's somehow detrimental to us.  As if America would all be hyped up about getting healthcare reform passed, if only Gibbs had mentioned that instead of his palm list.  And yes, someone actually suggested that Palin was "popular," which is why we shouldn't mock her.

And hey, I understand that there are different people in this world with different priorities, but why do these people insist upon lecturing us if we're obviously the dummies?  I could understand if Gibbs was mocking some smalltime blogger like Erick Erickson, but a sizeable chunk of the media seems to think Palin might be our next president.  It never hurts to get them laughing at her.

Republicans Always Win

Back in the day, Karl Rove was considered by many to be some sort of political mastermind; a man so clever that he could devise strategies in which you already lost before he even implemented them.  And as I've always argued, Rove was little more than a thug in a suit. 

For as much as he strategized and schemed, it was only his insults and dirty tricks that did any good; while the strategies often blew up in his face.  And now the dude is resigned to hack political analysis in which he accuses everyone else of doing what everyone already knows he did, and outside the world of conservative hackdom, he's as untouchable as poo on a stick.

And I assumed that this fear of Republicans would die once Rove was gone.  But no, apparantly it wasn't Rove that these people feared; but any sort of hope that we might possibly win.  And so no matter what the political story is, they'll assure you that Democrats suck and will lose again, even after they've won.

The Shakey Liberals

And here's a case in point: The Shelby Shakedown; in which a desperate conservative senator completely overplayed his hand and gave Dems a stick to beat Republicans with.  When this story came out, we were assured by progressives that Democrats would lose because we suck. 

As one commenter stated:

Dems are really lousy spinners and this will somehow be turned on it's ear and become Obama's fault for attempting to cut waste fraud and abuse from the huge republican created deficits the Republicans are so worried about.

And another:

How many of you folks want to make a bet on the number of "senior" Democrats who will get on the air on TV and say something about this and get mad?  My guess is "0".

And another:

Reid will be out there worrying himself to death again. Obama will have some elegant, but totally detached rhetoric against it, I'm sure.

But of course, in reality, the Whitehouse did respond sharply; as did Reid's office.  And it was reported in the media.  Yet even on a post which cited multiple attacks on Shelby, we were assured that Democrats were going to lose because, "as usual," they couldn't get their message out. 

Like this commenter:

I am so over my parties inability to govern. Calling out the opposing party and getting that message out is a part of governing and we are failing miserably....The 'megaphone gap' is our own damn fault.

And yes, he wrote that on a post which cited multiple senior level Democrats calling out Shelby and using it as a club against Republican obstructionism; as reported in the NY Times.  And when I pointed that out, I was assured that these Dems just weren't important enough and that Obama himself was going to have to attack Shelby directly for this to have any effect.

And here we are, a mere five days after the story inititally broke (which included a weekend), and Shelby has already retracted his hold and is now lying about what transpired.  And so you'd think that people might actually give Dems a little credit for doing what they should have done and you'd be wrong.  While most commenters knew at least to ignore this story, we still got comments like:

I disagree. The Republican strategy has always been to throw everything against the wall and see what sticks. If Shelby had been successful, he'd have successfully derailed Obama's ability to make nominations with an absolute minimum effort.

[....]
That is not progress for the Democrats. The fact that the Democrats might be patting themselves on the back for this is evidence that the Republican strategy is working just fine.

That's right, even in a story in which a Republican got called out and embarrassed for his actions, forcing him to lie about what he did to cover his own ass, Democrats lose.  And if they even think they won, it's even worse for them.  We fell for their trap, yet again, as evidenced by the fact that Shelby didn't resign or shoot himself on the Senate floor...or something.

Dems Win Too

And what's maddening is that, yes, I understand the reasoning behind what they're saying.  Yes, Republicans are tricky bastards and you can lose simply by playing the game.  But that doesn't mean this is always happening.  Republicans aren't always winning.  In fact, I daresay that they lose far more than they win.  Yes, they're loud and proud, and no, they don't admit defeat or slink off into disgrace.  Shelby isn't going to suffer greatly from this and after a few days, everyone will forget that this even happened and some Democrats will insist it never does.

But all the same, we won and they lost.  And we won because we hit Shelby for his stupid move and the media reported it.  Did they report it as much as they should have?  No.  But it did get reported and we won.  And this is generally par for the course.  Democrats actually have many of these little victories.  And for as much as we're assured that they always lose, history shows we win big victories too.

And the reason these people insist that we always lose is because it gives them an excuse to be cynical and abstain from playing the game.  It's much easier to sit on the sidelines criticizing everyone, than getting involved and trying to win.  And for as much as they insist that Dems are weak for not attacking Republicans more, it is obvious that their real targets are Democrats. 

Apparently, these people won't be satisfied until the Republican Party dissolves itself and the entire progressive agenda is implemented until the end of time.  Anything short of that is total defeat and you're a fool for not seeing that.

Study: Unhealthy People Live Unhealthy Lifestyles

God, I can't wait for the day when health researchers' licenses can be revoked.  The Headline: Sugary soft drinks linked to pancreatic cancer: study.  The Proof: People who drink soda, who also happened to be "younger men who smoke, drink alcohol, eat higher-calorie diets and are less physically active" are at a higher risk of getting pancreatic cancer. 

In other words, soda drinkers in Singapore are an entirely different group of people than non-soda drinkers in Singapore, and are more likely to do many other things considered to be unhealthy.  Oh, and soda drinkers were also more likely to eat red meat; which has been linked to pancreatic cancer.  But don't worry, they "adjusted" for these other factors; so they can assure us it's just the sugar that did it, though they can't explain why or even tell us how much more at risk we are for drinking soda.

And of course, this sort of study is utter crap.  The very fact that they adjusted out the smoking, drinking, fatty, lazy, and red meat eating attributes in these people in order to focus on soda is proof positive that this is all they were looking for.  They designed their study so it would find that soda increased pancreatic cancer, and whooptidoo!  They found what they were looking for.  This sort of research is sheer blasphemy to true science, and shouldn't even pass muster at a high school science fair; let alone being blasted to the world as fact.

And seriously, two or more sodas a week?  Are they shitting me?  People who only drink two sodas a week shouldn't be grouped with people who drink six sodas a day.  Hell, a Supergulp from 7-11 is eight fucking servings!  And there are plenty of people who drink those on a regular basis.  If soda is a problem, that's the group you ought to seek out.  Those guys should be a fricking death ward if soda causes pancreatic cancer.  But no, they make these categories as broad as possible; not because they're trying to find a link, but because they're trying to scare us out of drinking soda.  After all, they wouldn't have designed their study as they did unless they already knew soda was dangerous.

And it's the same thing they do when they do studies on alcohol which group casual drinkers with alcoholics, or the study on pot smokers that supposedly included people who smoke fifty joints a day; or when they group the mildly overweight (which includes muscle-y people like myself) with the morbidly obese and insist that we're all going to die unless we lose a lot of weight.  Crap.  Just crap.  Any researcher who does this sort of thing should hang up their lab coat and get laid, because they're obviously too obsessed with controlling people's lives to get their job done. 

And when they come back, maybe they can do some real research.  The sort that doesn't involve "adjusting" out all the negative lifestyle choices besides the one that they're focusing on.  And then maybe, just maybe, they can finally get around to warning people about the high levels of saturated fat in milk.  Remember, your recommended daily serving of 2% milk has as much saturated fat as a serving of bacon.  Bacon; and they're still pimping the shit like it's health food.  I think I'll take the fat-free soda, thank you very much.

Football as Political Metaphor

I'm finding it increasingly frustrating to deal with liberals who INSIST that Democrats are losing because we're not getting everything we want.  That, because we're not stomping Republicans into the ground and getting every American to agree with us that Republicans suck, we're losing.  Sure, Obama enjoys majority support and Republican approval ratings haven't topped 40% in over two years; but all the same, Americans aren't listening to us because they're stupid and Republicans are reaping huge benefits from this stupidity...or so we're told.

But in the current political landscape, Republicans have no chance of winning.  It's impossible.  The best they can possibly hope for is to prevent us from scoring as much as they can, and hope that a tight score on Election Day will help put them in a position so that they might be able to score next year.  But this year, they don't even have the ball and can't put any points on the board.

And sure, we haven't gotten our healthcare reform or scored any major victories, but we have scored.  And a team that wins 3-0 still wins.  And it should be obvious from Obama's Q&A with Congressional Repubs last week that they absolutely HATE being labeled as obstructionists and realize that a stalemate doesn't necessarily bode well for them in November.  Almost every question they put to Obama involved them INSISTING that they had great ideas, if only Obama would implement them.  And Obama did an effective job of squashing that absurd theory while embarrassing them in the process.

And these liberals insist that Brown's victory in Massachussetts proves that America is turning against us.  Yet...data isn't the plural of anecdote and one election isn't enough to determine a trend.  That's why we generally look to general elections to see what the people are thinking, as they have a big enough sample size to see where things are heading.  Had Brown's victory occurred during a general election, it would barely have received any notice.  So ironically, it was BECAUSE Brown won on a day that couldn't have shown us a trend that so many decided he was proof of an anti-Dem backlash. 

And so conservatives latched onto that election as proof that they're finally back in the bigtime, while liberals insist that it's 2003 all over again and Dems are huge losers.  And lost in all this is the probability that Brown won because he ran a better campaign and was better liked than his opponent.  Not because it's true, but because it confirmed the expectations and desires of the people watching.  Conservatives are small-minded bozos who need popularity to soothe their easily bruised egos, while liberals like to be underdogs talking truth to power. 

And that's why we're stuck with so many liberals insisting that we're losing in a political landscape that we can't possibly lose in.  Not because we can't stop Republicans from scoring, but because we're not scoring enough.  Somehow, these people just don't feel comfortable with victory.

Tea Party Threatens Republican Party

I just wanted to highlight TPM's recent article 'We Might As Well Be Able To Vote For Disney': Tea Partiers Slam Citizens United Ruling, which is about how many in the Tea Party "movement" are realizing what a lousy development this was for them.  And yes, this is something I predicted twelve days ago, in my post Tea Party Money Becomes Irrelevant. 

And the reason should be obvious: The Tea Party movement isn't some popular uprising against Obama or the Democrats.  It's a faction of the Republican Party which has existed for decades, but only recently adopted an official name and identity.  But these people have always existed, have always believed roughly what they believe now, and have always hated liberals as much as they hate liberals now; which is the only thing that really defines them.  They're not Big Business Republicans, or Social Conservative Republicans; and don't really have any specific agenda.  They just hate liberals and they've finally found a banner to wave in front of themselves.

And now that the Republican-hype machine has inflated their egos, the faction is splintering off from the Republican Party and claiming a distinct identity.  And for as much as they're identified as being a thorn in Obama's side, it should be obvious that they're really a huge threat to the GOP Establishment.  Just as the Naderites were a threat to Democrats, the Tea Partiers are pulling Republicans apart.  They're sick of being taken for granted and now need to be appeased.  It's all about a quest for power; they've tasted blood and now they want their political party to do their bidding; whatever that happens to be.

And in that light, the Corporate Cash ruling is a huge blow at their position of power.  Right now, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of little Tea Party organizers trying to make a name for themselves within the movement; while the GOP leadership continues to play with fire by building them up without letting them loose.  But these people are generally contrarians and like to imagine that they're free-thinkers, and the more Republicans try to box them into the party, the more they're going to resist.  They're not looking to be cogs in the GOP's machine; each of them wants to be the leader of the movement.  And the more the Republicans try to use them as cogs, the more these people will resist.

As things were, these little Partiers were finding themselves to be important; even being quoted in the media and whatnot.  But an influx of Corporate Cash into politics will drown all that out.  Some of these little guys are already realizing that, and the more impotent this Corporate Cash makes them, the more angry they're going to get.  As evidenced in the New York recently, these people don't care about political victories; they just want to be heard.  They don't want to put Republican leaders in power; they want the power for themselves.  And for as much as Nader lost credibility when he relished in giving Bush the Whitehouse, the Tea Partiers only get more aggressive in defeat. 

If the Republican Establishment's candidate doesn't tell them what they want to hear, they'll find a candidate who will.  These people aren't joing together to storm Obama out of the Whitehouse; as they imagine they are.  They're looking for a party to call their own.  I hope they find it.

The House Always Wins

As an official spokesman for Obama's newly created Department of Handling Stupid, I'd like to say in response to this article that Obama truly is committed to having financially strapped families gamble away their mortgage payments in Vegas; and when he said "You don't blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you're trying to save for college," he was really trying to emphasize what a good investment the slots are and how there's no better way to save for your child's future than to play Keno.  Keno: Putting Harvard just twenty balls away.

Seriously, when did it become politically incorrect to be sensible?  And yeah, it totally makes sense for federal, state, and local lawmakers in Nevada to blame the state's 13% unemployment rate on a few comments Obama made.  I suppose that's a lot easier than actually doing something about it.

Osama Hearts Global Warming

What???

Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden has called for the world to boycott American goods and the U.S. dollar, blaming the United States and other industrialized countries for global warming, according to a new audiotape released Friday.

My lord, how is this NOT something from the Onion?  So when Osama doesn't like our foreign policy towards his people, he's going to kill us and destroy our buildings, but when our policies threaten the extinction of man, he's going to boycott our stuff?  That bastard!  This means war!!!

And like, huh?  People who listen to Osama are heavy buyers of American goods?  That doesn't seem right in the first place.  I mean, his followers are pulling jihad on us, yet they're still buying our jeans?  Even Americans don't buy American, and we make the crap.  And hey, Osama, could you maybe have gone the boycott route first?  I mean, you go jihad, then boycott??  What's next, a stern letter?  Maybe you'll defriend us on Facebook?  Come on, dude.  Have a sense of proportion.

And finally, I really think the guy jumped the shark on this one, exposing that he really is a rightwing mouthpiece trying to make liberals look back.  "See, even OBL believes in Global Warming," they'll be saying.  And now the wingnuts will double-down with their beloved Ostrich Strategy, which has them ignore every problem that can't be solved with taxcuts, deregulation, or bombs. 

But now that Osama's picked sides in the Global Warming debate, I have no other choice than to do the exact opposite of what he says.  Fire of the factories, boys!  Let's smoke this mother out!!

Hopelessly Out of Touch

When did this happen?

Republicans delight in depicting President Barack Obama as hopelessly out of touch with average Americans, but the decision by the Republican National Committee to hold its winter meeting at a tropical resort is turning the accusation on its head.

I'm not sure I've seen anything remotely out of touch or elitist about Obama, while Republicans have been the party of Wall Street for decades upon decades, while its policy ideas are mired in an imaginary foundation that Reagan supposedly established thirty years ago and serve no practical purpose.  The bible has more relevant answers to our modern problems than these dummies do and the damn thing was written two thousand years ago by desert-dwellers who didn't even know what bacteria was.

So why does it take a dumb trip to Hawaii to turn the "out of touch" meme on its head?  Dude, Republicans were out of touch when Hoover ignored the greatest economic crisis in our country's history and they haven't looked back.  Hell, they still defend Hoover's policies.  Calling Republicans out of touch is like calling Lawrence Welk "old school."  Yet Politico is acting like this is something new.  As if they hadn't noticed that the Republican solution to our economic woes are tax cuts and deregulation for the rich...which also happens to be their cure for healthcare, poverty, crime, and the flu.  In fact, the only time they're not trying to help the rich is when they're helping the super-rich; which is most of the time.  This isn't something new.

But of course, Politico's idea for this is no better.  Sure, Republicans have no practical solutions of any merit as they don't even understand why they need to solve any problems, but...if they could hold their meetings in a crappy place like Baltimore, particularly during crappy weather; the optics would be gold.  And that's what it's all about with these dummies.  Apparently, it was a big negative for Obama to vacation in Hawaii, but now that Republicans are having a "meeting" there, it all evens out.  Finally, the Dems can level the playing field with their Average Joe breathren across the aisle.

And of course, that's where the joke is in all this: The only way the Republican Party could ever look in-touch is by comparison with the nitwit media.  And just in case any of my loyal readers are Baltimorians, I'm sure you have a fine city.  I just thought it was funny the way Politico used Baltimore as if it's the anti-Hawaii; a place so crappy it makes Republican policies more palatable if they're discussed there.  And yeah, the fact that I comfortably wore shorts outside today apparently makes me an out-of-touch elitist who doesn't understand the problems of real Americans.  What a bunch of bozos.

Fact Checking the Fact Checkers

I really like to be told when I'm wrong, as well as seeing things from other perspectives; as that's the only way to really keep on top of my game.  And so I always make a point of reading the "fact check" pieces that Yahoo cites on their frontpage, as a way of knowing if Obama's lying to me.  But unfortunately, they rely upon the Associated Press, which relies upon bozos who have an extremely loose concept of "facts."  Apparently, it took six reporters to find nine items to fact check; little of which would require even minor corrections.

I'm not even going to bother doing a line-by-line fact check of this fact check, as almost every "correction" falls into one of two categories: Correcting claims that Obama never said and pointing out that Congress might not do what Obama wants it to do.  Like when they cite his claim that people can keep their health insurance under his plan, then call him to task because he didn't explain that insurance companies might raise costs or change the plans.  As if he said they wouldn't.

Or when Obama cited Congress's failure to form a Deficit Commission before saying that he's making one of his own; which is "fact checked" because Obama's commission won't be binding on Congress, while Congress's might have been.  And that's it.  It's not that Obama is lying; it's merely that he didn't explain how his commission might be different from the one Congress would have created.

And another time, they "fact checked" him because not everyone agrees that his policies saved two million jobs.  And because the CBO says it can't make such a determination, therefore Obama is wrong...or something.  And that's the weird thing about the fact check, in that they really don't seem to feel comfortable with the concept of facts, and seem to be calling him to task for making any factual claims at all. 

And I suspect that this is really what their big beef is.  It's not that Obama is a liar; it's that he's positing an objective reality, and that simply blows their minds.  Apparently, that's not what they teach in journalism school anymore.  Six reporters.  Six.  And this is the best they can do.  Is it any wonder an extremely unpopular political party can pretend to be masters of the universe when bozos like this are the gatekeepers of truth?

Electables Need Not Apply

A loyal reader recently suggested that the reason Romney won't get a presidential nomination is because he's Republican.  But as I've said before, I really don't see how that's an issue.  These people would vote for Karl Marx if he promised them he'd crush liberals. No, I think Romney's problem is that he just doesn't have any fire in him and comes off a bit flavorless for the hardcore conservatives (and this is a standard by which Mark Sanford is hardcore and flavored).
Part of this is that the RedState-style Republicans like to imagine that they have standards, and so they automatically place Romney as an Establishment goon that they'd never vote for; not because they wouldn't vote for him (they will), but because they like to pretend they have standards. But if Romney talked a better game, he'd woo them over. But the sort of fire-breathing he'd have to do would make him untouchable for anyone else (plus, he just doesn't have enough soul to pull it off), so that just won't happen. And that's a big reason why he'd be a better candidate than any of the jerks these people want
And that's why Obama has little to worry about: The base simply doesn't want anyone sane enough to be electable.  I just wish this was something more apparent to the Dem Establishment. 

The Solution to my Budget Deficit

I've found lately that I just never seem to have enough money.  So I've decided to fix that problem by earning less money, thereby forcing me to spend less.  That's just got to work.