In an effort to show that conservatives are too nutty to parody, I give you RedState's Dan McLaughlin's post: Memo to McCain Camp: Washington Has Failed. Send in Gov. Palin.
Seriously, it's like these people are little kids who still imagine that their daddy has super powers. In RedState's defense, two of the three commenters on that board realize what an embarrassment Palin has been; with one of those admitting that McLaughlin's plan is a stunt that would likely backfire. But of course, the third commenter suggests that it's only "gotcha interviews" that make her look bad, and that this is why McCain's campaign needs to "let her be herself." Apparently, every interview is a "gotcha" interview if you suck hard enough.
And this is just sad. The selection of Palin was a huge blunder and these people are very desperate to prove otherwise. After all, she was selected primarily because dopes like McLaughlin wanted her, and now it's looking like that pick was a dud. And even the enthusiasm that Palin brought them had nothing to do with who she was or what they thought she'd do. They were bummed that they didn't get the presidential nominee they wanted, and were just excited because they got something they wanted for Christmas. They weren't really looking for a governor from Alaska, they just wanted a sign that showed McCain cared. They really should have just asked for a pony.
And now they're desperate to find some use for Palin. Sure, she can recite other people's speeches from teleprompters, but she sucks during interviews and only undermined McCain's attacks on Obama. So the best they've got is to have her use her celebrity in order to convince Republican congressmen to vote for a bill they all decided to use as a political hand-grenade.
I think my favorite part is where McLaughlin suggests that Palin hold a press conference (snicker snicker) where she refers to these jerks as "heroes" for jumping on the hand-grenade that already blew up in their faces once, and also "explain to the media that she has learned as a Governor that being a doer matters more than being a talker." But as we've seen already, Palin ain't much of a talker, either.
I suspect that a post-Christmas depression is slowly setting in over RedState and that the kids are already wishing they had gotten a boring toy like Romney instead. Fantasy is always better than reality and attacking Obama was much more fun than spinning for Palin.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
The Magician's Tablecloth
The Republicans screwed up, bigtime. It started as a pig at the trough bailout, with Paulson and the Bush Admin serving as the pig callers. But as the pigs showed up, they made increasingly absurd demands, until finally, the thing sank under its own weight. But plain and simple, this was a Bush Admin bailout, entirely conceived of by them and intended to be run by them. But they blew it.
And so Democratic leaders rushed to their aid, but started asking lots of questions and finally decided to bailout the bailout; but on their terms. It was still basically the same bad deal, but with lots of little goodies and oversight added to it. They turned the Bush Admin's horrible plan into something Democrats would be willing to accept. But it was still the lousy bailout that the Bushies were too ashamed to withdrawal from. And so they played along and gave the Dems enough political cover without spoiling the whole parade.
And then there's McCain. Dropping in the polls, looking indecisive and stupid, he makes a political decision to bet everything onred, I mean bailout. And the plan is to swoop in and act presidential for something he imagines must be a straight-forward done deal that he can take the credit for. After all, he's the one who "suspended" his campaign, so it must have been his idea. But he's not really in on the Bush Admin plan (possibly because he continues to denounce Bush's record and Bush has always hated him) and doesn't realize that the initial plan was a bust.
So McCain basically walked into a loaded dice craps game that the pitboss is now keeping an eye on...and doesn't realize any of this. Obama already called his bluff on the campaign "suspension," but he was still planning to get his presidential photo-op. Stupid bastard didn't have a clue. This was the real deal.
The House Loses
Finally, we have the last piece of the equation, which turned a serious financial bailout into political farce: The House Republicans. These guys have been shitting themselves for having followed Bush into a political minefield over the past several years, and none of the smart guys like Rove or DeLay are around to guide them through anymore. And now they're panicking.
These are loyal authoritarians who support Dear Leader right up to the time they realize their fates are better left in their own hands; and that time has now arrived. They've got a little over a month before they face the wrath of the voters and they better come up with something quick. They've been in lemming territory for quite awhile and they're starting to panic now that the cliff is approaching. After all, Bush gets to retire to Crawford next year, but these people still have an election to think about. And if they lose, it's back to their day jobs.
And so they pull the oldest play in the politician's handbook: Doing what's popular with voters. Screw the party elders, it's every congressman for himself. And while this bailout is probably necessary, it's unpopular, especially with Republicans. And so they're going to be the "heroes" by "bravely" opposing it and hoping it's enough to convince voters to ignore everything else they've done over the past two years.
As the Dishes Fall
But let's go back to why this specific package was made: The Dems decided to put their necks on the line and save the Bush Admin as a way of avoiding a huge crisis. Without the Dems, you've got the Bush Admin with a dead in the water bailout. And without the bailout, you've got a crisis. Now, the Republicans decided to take advantage of this for political reasons, but it only works if the bill still gets passed. Because without a bill, you've got crisis. And who gets blamed for that? The dopes who killed the bill.
Because the House Republicans weren't actually against the bailout. They were against being blamed for the bailout. But without the bailout, we've still got crisis. And if they're the ones who stopped it, then they're responsible for coming up with their own plan to avoid crisis. But as we've already seen, their plan was idiotic and failed to account for even basic principles of finance or insurance. It was an ideological contrivance designed to impress the rubes who hated the bailout, but it wasn't supposed to actually work. Their real plan was just to pull the tablecloth aside and marvel as the dishes stayed in place. Viola!
They assumed that the Dems would pull out all the stops to make the bailout work, so they could pin the whole thing on the Democrats. But enough House Dems were smart enough to see what was happening and they didn't want any part of it. Or as one analysis I saw suggested, Dem leaders built-in a failsafe that would sink the bill without more cover from Republicans. Or perhaps Dem leaders realized what was happening and set-up the Republicans to look like the bad guys by telling a few Dems to vote against it. Who knows.
Holding the Bag
But whatever it was, it's a done deal now. All that matters is that the Republican betrayal backfired. They were supposed to look like the heroes who bravely stood against Bush and the Democrats, but instead look like the jerks who put politics ahead of crisis. And even worse, the Republicans signaled that they were going to play politics on this and make the Dems own an unpopular bill. And if Dems are going to own the bill, they might as well make it one that Democrats like; which would involve completely scraping Paulson's plan and starting over.
And so rather than being the "brave" politicians who pretended to fight an unpopular "Democratic" plan, they now look like obstructionist idiots who are likely to have an actual Democratic plan pushed through. And if Bush is the stubborn asshole we know he is, he'll approve of just about anything the Democrats come up with at this point. If so, he'll finally have learned how the game works, months before he leaves public office forever. Loyalty's nice, but it's safer to have political cover from your opponents. That's what Clinton did and he'll always be more popular than Bush ever will be.
And McCain? He's hung out to dry by his own gimmicks. Had he not vowed to push the bailout through last week as his big news grabber, he wouldn't have been stuck in the position of having to support it this week. Had he led the House GOP in an anti-bailout charge, they could all come out looking like heroes; at least to the conservative base that was already going to vote for him. But instead, he gave the bailout a more bi-partisan appearance, which makes the Republican betrayal less defensible. And because Obama brought most of his side to support the bi-partisan bill McCain supported, he comes out ahead, even though the bill failed. So rather than putting Obama in a corner, McCain cornered himself and made Obama look presidential.
And even worse, McCain looks like a continuation of Bush more than ever. McCain's already looking like a lameduck and he didn't even get to be president. Poor schmuck never did understand strategy.
And so Democratic leaders rushed to their aid, but started asking lots of questions and finally decided to bailout the bailout; but on their terms. It was still basically the same bad deal, but with lots of little goodies and oversight added to it. They turned the Bush Admin's horrible plan into something Democrats would be willing to accept. But it was still the lousy bailout that the Bushies were too ashamed to withdrawal from. And so they played along and gave the Dems enough political cover without spoiling the whole parade.
And then there's McCain. Dropping in the polls, looking indecisive and stupid, he makes a political decision to bet everything on
So McCain basically walked into a loaded dice craps game that the pitboss is now keeping an eye on...and doesn't realize any of this. Obama already called his bluff on the campaign "suspension," but he was still planning to get his presidential photo-op. Stupid bastard didn't have a clue. This was the real deal.
The House Loses
Finally, we have the last piece of the equation, which turned a serious financial bailout into political farce: The House Republicans. These guys have been shitting themselves for having followed Bush into a political minefield over the past several years, and none of the smart guys like Rove or DeLay are around to guide them through anymore. And now they're panicking.
These are loyal authoritarians who support Dear Leader right up to the time they realize their fates are better left in their own hands; and that time has now arrived. They've got a little over a month before they face the wrath of the voters and they better come up with something quick. They've been in lemming territory for quite awhile and they're starting to panic now that the cliff is approaching. After all, Bush gets to retire to Crawford next year, but these people still have an election to think about. And if they lose, it's back to their day jobs.
And so they pull the oldest play in the politician's handbook: Doing what's popular with voters. Screw the party elders, it's every congressman for himself. And while this bailout is probably necessary, it's unpopular, especially with Republicans. And so they're going to be the "heroes" by "bravely" opposing it and hoping it's enough to convince voters to ignore everything else they've done over the past two years.
As the Dishes Fall
But let's go back to why this specific package was made: The Dems decided to put their necks on the line and save the Bush Admin as a way of avoiding a huge crisis. Without the Dems, you've got the Bush Admin with a dead in the water bailout. And without the bailout, you've got a crisis. Now, the Republicans decided to take advantage of this for political reasons, but it only works if the bill still gets passed. Because without a bill, you've got crisis. And who gets blamed for that? The dopes who killed the bill.
Because the House Republicans weren't actually against the bailout. They were against being blamed for the bailout. But without the bailout, we've still got crisis. And if they're the ones who stopped it, then they're responsible for coming up with their own plan to avoid crisis. But as we've already seen, their plan was idiotic and failed to account for even basic principles of finance or insurance. It was an ideological contrivance designed to impress the rubes who hated the bailout, but it wasn't supposed to actually work. Their real plan was just to pull the tablecloth aside and marvel as the dishes stayed in place. Viola!
They assumed that the Dems would pull out all the stops to make the bailout work, so they could pin the whole thing on the Democrats. But enough House Dems were smart enough to see what was happening and they didn't want any part of it. Or as one analysis I saw suggested, Dem leaders built-in a failsafe that would sink the bill without more cover from Republicans. Or perhaps Dem leaders realized what was happening and set-up the Republicans to look like the bad guys by telling a few Dems to vote against it. Who knows.
Holding the Bag
But whatever it was, it's a done deal now. All that matters is that the Republican betrayal backfired. They were supposed to look like the heroes who bravely stood against Bush and the Democrats, but instead look like the jerks who put politics ahead of crisis. And even worse, the Republicans signaled that they were going to play politics on this and make the Dems own an unpopular bill. And if Dems are going to own the bill, they might as well make it one that Democrats like; which would involve completely scraping Paulson's plan and starting over.
And so rather than being the "brave" politicians who pretended to fight an unpopular "Democratic" plan, they now look like obstructionist idiots who are likely to have an actual Democratic plan pushed through. And if Bush is the stubborn asshole we know he is, he'll approve of just about anything the Democrats come up with at this point. If so, he'll finally have learned how the game works, months before he leaves public office forever. Loyalty's nice, but it's safer to have political cover from your opponents. That's what Clinton did and he'll always be more popular than Bush ever will be.
And McCain? He's hung out to dry by his own gimmicks. Had he not vowed to push the bailout through last week as his big news grabber, he wouldn't have been stuck in the position of having to support it this week. Had he led the House GOP in an anti-bailout charge, they could all come out looking like heroes; at least to the conservative base that was already going to vote for him. But instead, he gave the bailout a more bi-partisan appearance, which makes the Republican betrayal less defensible. And because Obama brought most of his side to support the bi-partisan bill McCain supported, he comes out ahead, even though the bill failed. So rather than putting Obama in a corner, McCain cornered himself and made Obama look presidential.
And even worse, McCain looks like a continuation of Bush more than ever. McCain's already looking like a lameduck and he didn't even get to be president. Poor schmuck never did understand strategy.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Bigger Mistakes, Please
Via Josh Marshall, I read Bill Kristol's advice for how McCain can still win the campaign, and I certainly hope McCain will take it...along with the exact opposite advice that I'm sure he'll be hearing within the next few days. And if the past is any indication, I'm sure he'll follow all of this advice, at least twice.
And while Kristol's piece was full of good examples of what McCain's been doing wrong, Kristol's final piece of advice was perhaps the worst. It was an attack Palin should make on Obama during the VP debate based on the "opening" Obama gave by nailing McCain for not mentioning the middle-class during the last debate.
And so his big "retort" is to have Palin mention during her debate that in one of his books, Obama used a passage from a brochure from his church named “A Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness.” And after Palin gives this long set-up for something that exactly 0.01% of viewers will understand, she is supposed to ask Biden "when Obama flip-flopped on Middleclassness."
And of course, this is the point in the debate when Biden laughs his ass off. But if past performance is any indication, Biden should have many such opportunities.
We're All Conservatives
It's obvious Kristol has avoided the real world for too long if he imagines this "attack" has any bite to it. As if Obama is completely hoisted for talking about the middle-class because he quoted a passage from a church brochure in a book he wrote thirteen years ago. And hell, I felt stupid even taking the time to summarize the attack Kristol was intending, yet Kristol imagines that Palin can turn this into some ultimate zinger on live television. While I'm sure conservatives everywhere would be high-fiving each other upon hearing it, most viewers would just give a "WTF?" look to each other and assume that Palin just stepped in it again.
But of course, Kristol's entire column is the product of an ever-shrinking conservative worldview that is as sad as it is delusional. Not that he really believes any of this stuff, but he has no choice but to repeat it. They all do. Their entire world has been shattering in slow motion ever since the Invasion of Iraq turned into the Occupation of Iraq. And so he has to pretend as if McCain's just not being ballsy enough and that Palin is some proven talent being wrongly muzzled.
And of course, he must act as if every American is so well-versed in Obama-bashing minutia that it'd score instant points for Palin to get a Reverend Wright reference into the debate; as if that's what voters were waiting to hear before they sided with McCain. But he doesn't believe any of this stuff. None of them do. They've admitted years ago that propaganda is more important than reality and they meant it.
And so rather than admitting they ever made a mistake, they believe that the only real mistake is not making it big enough. I hope McCain agrees.
And while Kristol's piece was full of good examples of what McCain's been doing wrong, Kristol's final piece of advice was perhaps the worst. It was an attack Palin should make on Obama during the VP debate based on the "opening" Obama gave by nailing McCain for not mentioning the middle-class during the last debate.
And so his big "retort" is to have Palin mention during her debate that in one of his books, Obama used a passage from a brochure from his church named “A Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness.” And after Palin gives this long set-up for something that exactly 0.01% of viewers will understand, she is supposed to ask Biden "when Obama flip-flopped on Middleclassness."
And of course, this is the point in the debate when Biden laughs his ass off. But if past performance is any indication, Biden should have many such opportunities.
We're All Conservatives
It's obvious Kristol has avoided the real world for too long if he imagines this "attack" has any bite to it. As if Obama is completely hoisted for talking about the middle-class because he quoted a passage from a church brochure in a book he wrote thirteen years ago. And hell, I felt stupid even taking the time to summarize the attack Kristol was intending, yet Kristol imagines that Palin can turn this into some ultimate zinger on live television. While I'm sure conservatives everywhere would be high-fiving each other upon hearing it, most viewers would just give a "WTF?" look to each other and assume that Palin just stepped in it again.
But of course, Kristol's entire column is the product of an ever-shrinking conservative worldview that is as sad as it is delusional. Not that he really believes any of this stuff, but he has no choice but to repeat it. They all do. Their entire world has been shattering in slow motion ever since the Invasion of Iraq turned into the Occupation of Iraq. And so he has to pretend as if McCain's just not being ballsy enough and that Palin is some proven talent being wrongly muzzled.
And of course, he must act as if every American is so well-versed in Obama-bashing minutia that it'd score instant points for Palin to get a Reverend Wright reference into the debate; as if that's what voters were waiting to hear before they sided with McCain. But he doesn't believe any of this stuff. None of them do. They've admitted years ago that propaganda is more important than reality and they meant it.
And so rather than admitting they ever made a mistake, they believe that the only real mistake is not making it big enough. I hope McCain agrees.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Poll Errors You Can Believe In
At this point, I'm really thinking I need to change the title of this blog to "And Doctor Biobrain's Response to RedState Is..." because I just can't help myself. I keep telling myself that I can write stuff that isn't mocking RedState, but then I get bored, click over there, and BAM!, my next blog post writes itself.
This one is in regards to Jeff Emanuel's post: Obama Campaign Lies About Post-Debate Poll in Order to Claim Victory. In this one, Emanuel attempts to demonstrate that Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe lied to us in a campaign email regarding the instant poll results of yesterday's debate. But as usual, he had to get everything wrong to do so.
Take this example of idiocy:
Those numbers look very good for the Obama campaign and very poor for John McCain -- that is, until you look at (a) the fact that the numbers Plouffe claims from the CBS poll (66% for Obama, 42% for McCain) actually add up to 108%, and (b) the actual CNN report on its own poll, which shows that the entire statement above from Barack Obama's campaign manager is pretty much one big lie.
But of course, Emanuel got both parts of that wrong. The CBS poll wasn't asking which of the two you trusted more, nor did Plouffe's email suggest it did. It just asked if you trusted the individual candidates. As Plouffe wrote, "When it comes to the economy, 66% say Barack would make the right decisions versus 42% for McCain." And so the reason it could add up to 108% is because respondants could say they trusted both candidates if they wanted to, and clearly some did.
And as another example of the Conservative Double-Down Theory of Mistakes, one commenter was astute enough to point this out, but rather than admit his mistake, Emanuel wrote "The way Plouffe couched it, it *was* either/or...Just more dishonesty." That's right Jeff. It was Plouffe who did that. Dumbass.
CBS-CNN Confusion
And regarding his second part, he screwed up by combining the two polls that Plouffe referenced. Plouffe referenced a CBS poll of uncommitted voters, and then a CNN poll that was a random sample of debate-watchers, which leaned Democratic. And so when Plouffe referenced "uncommitted voters" in the CBS poll, Emanuel wisely grabbed CNN's statement that their poll had more Democrats in it as a way of showing that Plouffe lied. Hey, they both start with "C". Anyone could make that mistake.
And Emanuel made a HUGE deal of this. All he had were these two "lies," which he bases his entire post on, and ends his rant saying "Plouffe's email was, top to bottom, typically and shamelessly dishonest, and he should come clean about that fact to all of the people he lied to by sending this note."
And again, a commenter pointed this mistake out, but I guess Emanuel hasn't figured out how to blame Plouffe for this blunder yet. I mean, it was the first comment anyone made and Emanuel responded to a later one, so I imagine he read it. But perhaps he was too blinded by the smoke coming out of his ears to be able to type his response.
Again, his entire post was based upon what a sham Plouffe's email was, yet didn't get one point right. Not one. Not a single point. His post was, top to bottom, one giant mistake. Embarrassing.
Commenters Count Too
And oh, if the commenters at RedState serve any purpose, it's to make the bloggers there look intelligent. Like Adel the Mystic, who believes the CBS poll must be a sham because it was done after calling hours. He also insisted that this is bad for Obama because the poll leaned Democratic, yet Obama didn't win by a bigger margin and suggests this must be due to "McCain Democrats." But of course, the CNN poll was 41% Democrat, and Obama got over 50% in each of the three questions Plouffe listed, so this makes no sense at all. But again, this came from a dude with "the Mystic" in his name, so I guess we must make allowances for fantasy math.
Another thing to note is that a big part of the reason CNN's poll had more Democrats than Republicans is because there are more Democrats than Republicans. Here's a Pew Research poll from earlier in the year that has 36% Democrats and 27% Republicans, which is only slightly different than CNN's poll, which had 41% Dems and 27% Repubs. Yet the wingnuts are insisting that this is proof of bias and that CNN's poll is useless. I guess that would be reality's liberal bias rearing its ugly head again.
And then we have Tbone, who actually suggests that the poll at Drudge Report is a better indicator than CBS or CNN. No seriously, he did. As he wrote: "I think most rational observers would go with the Drudge results as being the best general population indicator." This is based upon Tbone's own assertion that "everyone uses" Drudge, and therefore it splits evenly among left and right readers. Of course it does, Tbone.
And if that's not enough, let me remind you that this was an online poll. You know, the less than scientific kind that mean absolutely nothing. That's what Tbone imagines "most rational observers" would go with. But I guess rational is a relative term. Commenter Rod Patrick says that he likes these numbers better and states that this is proof that CNN is as partisan as Fox News. Oddly, I just checked Fox News' online poll, and they only show that 52% favored McCain, while Tbone says Drudge's poll showed McCain at 68%. I guess that shows Fox News' liberal bias. Will the madness ever end???
Anyway, that's my news from RedState. It's just like any other state, but crazy.
This one is in regards to Jeff Emanuel's post: Obama Campaign Lies About Post-Debate Poll in Order to Claim Victory. In this one, Emanuel attempts to demonstrate that Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe lied to us in a campaign email regarding the instant poll results of yesterday's debate. But as usual, he had to get everything wrong to do so.
Take this example of idiocy:
Those numbers look very good for the Obama campaign and very poor for John McCain -- that is, until you look at (a) the fact that the numbers Plouffe claims from the CBS poll (66% for Obama, 42% for McCain) actually add up to 108%, and (b) the actual CNN report on its own poll, which shows that the entire statement above from Barack Obama's campaign manager is pretty much one big lie.
But of course, Emanuel got both parts of that wrong. The CBS poll wasn't asking which of the two you trusted more, nor did Plouffe's email suggest it did. It just asked if you trusted the individual candidates. As Plouffe wrote, "When it comes to the economy, 66% say Barack would make the right decisions versus 42% for McCain." And so the reason it could add up to 108% is because respondants could say they trusted both candidates if they wanted to, and clearly some did.
And as another example of the Conservative Double-Down Theory of Mistakes, one commenter was astute enough to point this out, but rather than admit his mistake, Emanuel wrote "The way Plouffe couched it, it *was* either/or...Just more dishonesty." That's right Jeff. It was Plouffe who did that. Dumbass.
CBS-CNN Confusion
And regarding his second part, he screwed up by combining the two polls that Plouffe referenced. Plouffe referenced a CBS poll of uncommitted voters, and then a CNN poll that was a random sample of debate-watchers, which leaned Democratic. And so when Plouffe referenced "uncommitted voters" in the CBS poll, Emanuel wisely grabbed CNN's statement that their poll had more Democrats in it as a way of showing that Plouffe lied. Hey, they both start with "C". Anyone could make that mistake.
And Emanuel made a HUGE deal of this. All he had were these two "lies," which he bases his entire post on, and ends his rant saying "Plouffe's email was, top to bottom, typically and shamelessly dishonest, and he should come clean about that fact to all of the people he lied to by sending this note."
And again, a commenter pointed this mistake out, but I guess Emanuel hasn't figured out how to blame Plouffe for this blunder yet. I mean, it was the first comment anyone made and Emanuel responded to a later one, so I imagine he read it. But perhaps he was too blinded by the smoke coming out of his ears to be able to type his response.
Again, his entire post was based upon what a sham Plouffe's email was, yet didn't get one point right. Not one. Not a single point. His post was, top to bottom, one giant mistake. Embarrassing.
Commenters Count Too
And oh, if the commenters at RedState serve any purpose, it's to make the bloggers there look intelligent. Like Adel the Mystic, who believes the CBS poll must be a sham because it was done after calling hours. He also insisted that this is bad for Obama because the poll leaned Democratic, yet Obama didn't win by a bigger margin and suggests this must be due to "McCain Democrats." But of course, the CNN poll was 41% Democrat, and Obama got over 50% in each of the three questions Plouffe listed, so this makes no sense at all. But again, this came from a dude with "the Mystic" in his name, so I guess we must make allowances for fantasy math.
Another thing to note is that a big part of the reason CNN's poll had more Democrats than Republicans is because there are more Democrats than Republicans. Here's a Pew Research poll from earlier in the year that has 36% Democrats and 27% Republicans, which is only slightly different than CNN's poll, which had 41% Dems and 27% Repubs. Yet the wingnuts are insisting that this is proof of bias and that CNN's poll is useless. I guess that would be reality's liberal bias rearing its ugly head again.
And then we have Tbone, who actually suggests that the poll at Drudge Report is a better indicator than CBS or CNN. No seriously, he did. As he wrote: "I think most rational observers would go with the Drudge results as being the best general population indicator." This is based upon Tbone's own assertion that "everyone uses" Drudge, and therefore it splits evenly among left and right readers. Of course it does, Tbone.
And if that's not enough, let me remind you that this was an online poll. You know, the less than scientific kind that mean absolutely nothing. That's what Tbone imagines "most rational observers" would go with. But I guess rational is a relative term. Commenter Rod Patrick says that he likes these numbers better and states that this is proof that CNN is as partisan as Fox News. Oddly, I just checked Fox News' online poll, and they only show that 52% favored McCain, while Tbone says Drudge's poll showed McCain at 68%. I guess that shows Fox News' liberal bias. Will the madness ever end???
Anyway, that's my news from RedState. It's just like any other state, but crazy.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
And the Winner Is...
My big take on the debate: Obama's hair was awesome and McCain's sucked. Ipso facto, McCain won. I mean, how can a president expect to get anything done if he has to spend all his time making his hair look better than his partisan counterpart? He can't! And you can bet your bottom dollar that Joe Sixpack, who is the ultimate arbiters of all elections, didn't miss a second of that. He never does. President McCain, here we come!
Update: Apparently, Chris Matthews is telling me it's all about the eye contact, so maybe I'm wrong about everything I wrote. I apologize.
RedState Speaks
Oh, and for your WTF??? moment of the evening, check out this odd post by RedState's Erick Erickson in his post What McCain Should Really Say:
The next time Obama goes off on a McCain = Bush tangent in a debate, McCain needs to say, "Senator Obama keeps trying to connect me to President Bush, despite my repeated disagreements with the administration. My friends, let me be clear, I can pronounce 'nuclear'."
That's right. Former Bush lackey Erick Erickson thinks that the best way for McCain to disconnect himself from Bush's horrid legacy is to insult him with a standard liberal taunt about his pronunciations. Right. Did Erick Erickson's cool younger brother hack into his RedState account or did McCain get his ass kicked so hard that this is the best comeback Erickson could think of? I'm honestly hoping Erickson was really drunk when he wrote that (peach wine coolers are a lot stronger than you might think), and that he'll regret this one in the morning.
A commenter on that post actually suggests that McCain should mention that he wanted to choke Bush in 2000 or to tell people "how much of a pain in the butt" McCain was to Bush. Seriously, wouldn't they have flipped out if any of us had written that on their blog a few years ago, and insisted that we deserve to be in Gitmo? Do these people have any sort of self awareness? And as a sign of how bad their situation is, it's quite obvious that they're trying to swap sides with us and pretend as if they're the ones who have been proven right over the past eight years. Simply pathetic.
For the record, the RedStaters seem to think that Obama completely lost the debate, though none of their opinions actually give any explanation as to what the hell they're talking about (big surprise!). As usual, conservatives are so convinced of their righteousness that they never bother explaining what the hell they're talking about. Even the fact that McCain wouldn't look at Obama is used as evidence of how well he did. As is the fact that Henry Kissinger is McCain's friend of thirty years. That's the kind of thing that used to disgrace people, but time heels all wounds, I guess.
I'll admit that I didn't watch the debates because Mrs. Biobrain wanted to watch Snakes on a Plane instead (seriously), but I read several liveblogs, and of the two sides, I'd have to say the liberal blogosphere sounded like the side that knew what the hell they were talking about. But I guess I would say that, wouldn't I? But only because I'm right.
Update: Apparently, Chris Matthews is telling me it's all about the eye contact, so maybe I'm wrong about everything I wrote. I apologize.
RedState Speaks
Oh, and for your WTF??? moment of the evening, check out this odd post by RedState's Erick Erickson in his post What McCain Should Really Say:
The next time Obama goes off on a McCain = Bush tangent in a debate, McCain needs to say, "Senator Obama keeps trying to connect me to President Bush, despite my repeated disagreements with the administration. My friends, let me be clear, I can pronounce 'nuclear'."
That's right. Former Bush lackey Erick Erickson thinks that the best way for McCain to disconnect himself from Bush's horrid legacy is to insult him with a standard liberal taunt about his pronunciations. Right. Did Erick Erickson's cool younger brother hack into his RedState account or did McCain get his ass kicked so hard that this is the best comeback Erickson could think of? I'm honestly hoping Erickson was really drunk when he wrote that (peach wine coolers are a lot stronger than you might think), and that he'll regret this one in the morning.
A commenter on that post actually suggests that McCain should mention that he wanted to choke Bush in 2000 or to tell people "how much of a pain in the butt" McCain was to Bush. Seriously, wouldn't they have flipped out if any of us had written that on their blog a few years ago, and insisted that we deserve to be in Gitmo? Do these people have any sort of self awareness? And as a sign of how bad their situation is, it's quite obvious that they're trying to swap sides with us and pretend as if they're the ones who have been proven right over the past eight years. Simply pathetic.
For the record, the RedStaters seem to think that Obama completely lost the debate, though none of their opinions actually give any explanation as to what the hell they're talking about (big surprise!). As usual, conservatives are so convinced of their righteousness that they never bother explaining what the hell they're talking about. Even the fact that McCain wouldn't look at Obama is used as evidence of how well he did. As is the fact that Henry Kissinger is McCain's friend of thirty years. That's the kind of thing that used to disgrace people, but time heels all wounds, I guess.
I'll admit that I didn't watch the debates because Mrs. Biobrain wanted to watch Snakes on a Plane instead (seriously), but I read several liveblogs, and of the two sides, I'd have to say the liberal blogosphere sounded like the side that knew what the hell they were talking about. But I guess I would say that, wouldn't I? But only because I'm right.
Friday, September 26, 2008
To the Victor Goes the Dishonor
Over at Hullabuloo, Tristero has a post that says that McCain and Palin are the last people in the world you'd want running the country. And I accurately pointed out in comments that there are TONS of Republicans that I consider just as bad as either of them (President John Bolton, anyone?), and that's just among the famous Republicans who are diplomatic enough to float to the top (as scum always does). And the problem isn't finding the Republican you don't want, but rather the one you don't fear.
And another commenter suggested Olympia Snowe as being the only one we wouldn't need to fear. But as I said, sorry, but I'm not buying it. History has shown that there are few honorable people when big rewards only go to the dishonorable, and far fewer among Republicans. If, as a presidential nominee, Olympia Snowe didn't pull a McCain and sell everything out to the Republican base and filthy smear machine, she'd lose in the same humiliating defeat McCain would have. Republicans just can't win any other way.
Whether or not McCain was an honorable man before this election, he at least was smart enough to cultivate a credible reputation that lots of relatively intelligent people believed in. And he destroyed it all in just a few months of a depressing political campaign. People do crazy things when they feel a big victory slipping from their grasp. And with the Republican Party being an inherently exclusivist group of elitist haters, there's only so many ways you can play the cards and still pull a majority on the national level. Any that haven't sold themselves out yet just haven't been given enough enticement to do so.
President Sell-Out
And I should have added to that that this doesn't just apply to winning elections. No Republican president could lead without selling out. Any Republican president that didn't seem to be one of the base would need to throw constant red meat at the base at every occasion. That's why Bush, as a "born again" "Texan" "ranch owner" with no record of being anti-Republican could get away with mere hints of coded religious language, while "Maverick" McCain had to hand his VP slot to an unqualified nimrod (who happened to be a born again Alaskan who hunts moose and "fights" government spending). And someone like Olympia Snowe would have to do far more to keep them on her side. Heck, Republicans couldn't even give Snowe the VP slot, let alone the top spot.
Again, it's not that Republicans keep sending these fruitcakes to the Whitehouse. It's that being a fruitcake is the only chance they've got of getting there. Honestly, had McCain not sold-out to the conservatives or gone heavily negative, he'd have been lucky to even pull 35% on election day. As it is, I doubt he can win, but at least it won't be a humilating defeat.
And if McCain does somehow win, there's no going back to Maverickland for him. He's stuck on the Rove Talk Express forevah! So it's not enough to find some Republican politician who hasn't sold out yet. We've got to imagine that they'd be willing to stay that way and suffer an epic defeat. And to be totally honest with you, if my only shot at the presidency was to run as a dirty Republican sell-out, I'd consider it. I really would. I might not win with pride, but I'd still be a better president than any of the Republicans who ran this year.
And another commenter suggested Olympia Snowe as being the only one we wouldn't need to fear. But as I said, sorry, but I'm not buying it. History has shown that there are few honorable people when big rewards only go to the dishonorable, and far fewer among Republicans. If, as a presidential nominee, Olympia Snowe didn't pull a McCain and sell everything out to the Republican base and filthy smear machine, she'd lose in the same humiliating defeat McCain would have. Republicans just can't win any other way.
Whether or not McCain was an honorable man before this election, he at least was smart enough to cultivate a credible reputation that lots of relatively intelligent people believed in. And he destroyed it all in just a few months of a depressing political campaign. People do crazy things when they feel a big victory slipping from their grasp. And with the Republican Party being an inherently exclusivist group of elitist haters, there's only so many ways you can play the cards and still pull a majority on the national level. Any that haven't sold themselves out yet just haven't been given enough enticement to do so.
President Sell-Out
And I should have added to that that this doesn't just apply to winning elections. No Republican president could lead without selling out. Any Republican president that didn't seem to be one of the base would need to throw constant red meat at the base at every occasion. That's why Bush, as a "born again" "Texan" "ranch owner" with no record of being anti-Republican could get away with mere hints of coded religious language, while "Maverick" McCain had to hand his VP slot to an unqualified nimrod (who happened to be a born again Alaskan who hunts moose and "fights" government spending). And someone like Olympia Snowe would have to do far more to keep them on her side. Heck, Republicans couldn't even give Snowe the VP slot, let alone the top spot.
Again, it's not that Republicans keep sending these fruitcakes to the Whitehouse. It's that being a fruitcake is the only chance they've got of getting there. Honestly, had McCain not sold-out to the conservatives or gone heavily negative, he'd have been lucky to even pull 35% on election day. As it is, I doubt he can win, but at least it won't be a humilating defeat.
And if McCain does somehow win, there's no going back to Maverickland for him. He's stuck on the Rove Talk Express forevah! So it's not enough to find some Republican politician who hasn't sold out yet. We've got to imagine that they'd be willing to stay that way and suffer an epic defeat. And to be totally honest with you, if my only shot at the presidency was to run as a dirty Republican sell-out, I'd consider it. I really would. I might not win with pride, but I'd still be a better president than any of the Republicans who ran this year.
The Dog Ate My Brain
As an update to my last post, my current endeavour to solve our energy crisis by inventing a new form of energy is going very well, thanks to my experiment earlier today of pouring gallons and gallons of crude oil on large bails of thousand dollar bills and setting it on fire atop the largest energy research lab in the country. My handlers seem to think this was a stroke of genius, though apparently, opinions vary. The folks in that research lab, for example, have decided to put partisanship ahead of their country and have expressed great hostility to the plan I put forth. As usual, we'll let history be the judge on this one.
Of course, I am still currently weighing the pros and cons of all the viable options, including the Crude Oil Money Bonfire on Competitor plan, and have no official solution as to what I think we should do. So in the meantime, I have decided that it's in the nation's best interest if I suspend all of my brain activities until I am able to figure out some good way to claim this as a victory for myself. I just hope that my competitors agree to do the same, at least the ones who weren't killed earlier today in my energy experiment, anyway.
Our country's future is too important to allow partisan bickering get in the way of having everyone anoint me King of Everything, and I will hold my breath as long as I have to in order to make that happen. Not for myself, mind you. Just to make sure that everyone gives me everything I need...for the good of the country. After all, I'm the only one who can solve this crisis, even if I don't have the slightest clue as to how to go about that. But if any of y'all have any suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments section. Thanks a bunch.
Of course, I am still currently weighing the pros and cons of all the viable options, including the Crude Oil Money Bonfire on Competitor plan, and have no official solution as to what I think we should do. So in the meantime, I have decided that it's in the nation's best interest if I suspend all of my brain activities until I am able to figure out some good way to claim this as a victory for myself. I just hope that my competitors agree to do the same, at least the ones who weren't killed earlier today in my energy experiment, anyway.
Our country's future is too important to allow partisan bickering get in the way of having everyone anoint me King of Everything, and I will hold my breath as long as I have to in order to make that happen. Not for myself, mind you. Just to make sure that everyone gives me everything I need...for the good of the country. After all, I'm the only one who can solve this crisis, even if I don't have the slightest clue as to how to go about that. But if any of y'all have any suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments section. Thanks a bunch.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
The Dog Ate My Blog
Sorry, I can't blog right now. I have to invent a new form of energy by tomorrow morning or the whole world will go into a deep funk. I'd like to tell you how great I am, but you'll just have to bask in the glory of my accomplishments instead. Now watch this drive...
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Super McCain to the Rescue!!!
I confess that my unhealthy addiction to reading RedState continues unabated. Having read about McCain's absurd stunt to "suspend" his campaign so he can "fix" the financial crisis, I just had to go over there to see how this would play out with the wingnuts. Now mind you, these people used to HATE John McCain. But now...everything he touches turns to gold.
And what's funny about their analysis, including that of the commenters, is that they keep talking about how this is the "right" thing to do and how it shows that McCain is above politics. Yet, all they're talking about is politics. It's all about how "bold" McCain is being and how it puts Obama in a tight spot that he won't be able to get out of. One commenter mentions how this issue "will determine the outcome of the election," while another celebrates how this move helps McCain deal with the media, which is out to get him.
My favorite comment is this one by Spartan4Life, who writes "McCain Needs to Take Palin to DC, Too! She needs to be part of this negotiation. If she is going to reform Washington, she might as well get a good look at these gasbags up close and personal. Just a hunch, but something tells me she will know what to do on this." Yeah, I thought I had a hunch like that once, but it turned out to be gas. As for her solution to the crisis, if history is any indicator, she'll just say "Thanks, but no thanks" and relish the applause she gets. Or perhaps she'll put it on eBay or just have people shoot it from airplanes. Real solutions!
And sure, I actually read two commenters who explained what they hoped McCain would do, but it basically amounted to "not much." One was upset at the idea that we'd be helping the 1% of people who were being foreclosed on, while the other hated the bailout and expressed interest in a House GOP plan. But not one of them actually said what McCain would actually do differently than anyone else. Not one. Nor do they mention how this is just the latest of many desperate moves by McCain to pretend to have a solution to a problem he seems unable to understand.
Politics Politics Politics
Here's a bit from conservativesoldier83's post:
I personally think It was a bold move, but a good one.. McCain definitely has the upper hand now. What do you think Obama's reaction will be, and how do you think this will effect the polls?
Now, perhaps I'm mistaken and when CS83 says "upper hand" he's referring to McCain having an upper hand on the crisis. And perhaps he's referring to the effect on the polls which show people being against the bailout, and not McCain's poll numbers. But in the real world, this guy is only talking politics. And let's not forget that the use of the word "but" only makes sense if he's using the word "bold" to mean "risky." And this fits right in with McCain's Big Gamble strategy for winning this election.
Another piece of the funny came from Leon H. Wolf, who writes "But what is becoming clear right now is that we simply do not have time to wait around for all the normal partisan bickering about pointless issues that are collateral to the problem at hand (like CEO compensation) before something gets done. " What?? The issue of CEO compensation is partisan bickering?? What the hell is wrong with these people? It's like they don't even know what policy is.
Talking Ain't Doing
But again, neither of these guys really explain what McCain expects to accomplish in Washington. Wolf at least pretends to address the issue, implying that both Dems and Repubs will follow the candidates' lead if they work together, but at what? We're still back to the same bickering that we've got already, except we'd have injected politics on steroids into the mix. And this fits in with the conservative fantasy world, where there is a perfectly acceptable solution to every problem, if only Democrats would stop playing politics and do what they're told.
And it's obvious from reading these posts and comments that even McCain's supporters realize this is just a silly campaign stunt. Sure, they'll never admit to it, but it's all they can talk about. It's all about the bind that this puts Obama in and how bold the decision was. A few are smart enough to realize this could backfire, but no one really mentions what McCain is actually supposed to do. And none of them mention that this campaign "suspension" is just the latest gambit in the campaign and that nothing is being suspended.
This was yet another risky momentum shifter, which is likely to backfire. McCain's handlers realized they needed to change the discussion and stumbled into a minefield trying to create one, and the wingnuts couldn't be more pleased. Conservatives see what they want to see, and now that McCain has made the move, they can't help but declare how brilliant it is. And once it backfires, it'll all be the media's fault because they didn't play along. After the election is over, they'll bitterly denounce McCain as a loser who wasn't able to compete with the dreaded media; but until then, they can't help but be amazed at the boldness of McCain's genius.
And what's funny about their analysis, including that of the commenters, is that they keep talking about how this is the "right" thing to do and how it shows that McCain is above politics. Yet, all they're talking about is politics. It's all about how "bold" McCain is being and how it puts Obama in a tight spot that he won't be able to get out of. One commenter mentions how this issue "will determine the outcome of the election," while another celebrates how this move helps McCain deal with the media, which is out to get him.
My favorite comment is this one by Spartan4Life, who writes "McCain Needs to Take Palin to DC, Too! She needs to be part of this negotiation. If she is going to reform Washington, she might as well get a good look at these gasbags up close and personal. Just a hunch, but something tells me she will know what to do on this." Yeah, I thought I had a hunch like that once, but it turned out to be gas. As for her solution to the crisis, if history is any indicator, she'll just say "Thanks, but no thanks" and relish the applause she gets. Or perhaps she'll put it on eBay or just have people shoot it from airplanes. Real solutions!
And sure, I actually read two commenters who explained what they hoped McCain would do, but it basically amounted to "not much." One was upset at the idea that we'd be helping the 1% of people who were being foreclosed on, while the other hated the bailout and expressed interest in a House GOP plan. But not one of them actually said what McCain would actually do differently than anyone else. Not one. Nor do they mention how this is just the latest of many desperate moves by McCain to pretend to have a solution to a problem he seems unable to understand.
Politics Politics Politics
Here's a bit from conservativesoldier83's post:
I personally think It was a bold move, but a good one.. McCain definitely has the upper hand now. What do you think Obama's reaction will be, and how do you think this will effect the polls?
Now, perhaps I'm mistaken and when CS83 says "upper hand" he's referring to McCain having an upper hand on the crisis. And perhaps he's referring to the effect on the polls which show people being against the bailout, and not McCain's poll numbers. But in the real world, this guy is only talking politics. And let's not forget that the use of the word "but" only makes sense if he's using the word "bold" to mean "risky." And this fits right in with McCain's Big Gamble strategy for winning this election.
Another piece of the funny came from Leon H. Wolf, who writes "But what is becoming clear right now is that we simply do not have time to wait around for all the normal partisan bickering about pointless issues that are collateral to the problem at hand (like CEO compensation) before something gets done. " What?? The issue of CEO compensation is partisan bickering?? What the hell is wrong with these people? It's like they don't even know what policy is.
Talking Ain't Doing
But again, neither of these guys really explain what McCain expects to accomplish in Washington. Wolf at least pretends to address the issue, implying that both Dems and Repubs will follow the candidates' lead if they work together, but at what? We're still back to the same bickering that we've got already, except we'd have injected politics on steroids into the mix. And this fits in with the conservative fantasy world, where there is a perfectly acceptable solution to every problem, if only Democrats would stop playing politics and do what they're told.
And it's obvious from reading these posts and comments that even McCain's supporters realize this is just a silly campaign stunt. Sure, they'll never admit to it, but it's all they can talk about. It's all about the bind that this puts Obama in and how bold the decision was. A few are smart enough to realize this could backfire, but no one really mentions what McCain is actually supposed to do. And none of them mention that this campaign "suspension" is just the latest gambit in the campaign and that nothing is being suspended.
This was yet another risky momentum shifter, which is likely to backfire. McCain's handlers realized they needed to change the discussion and stumbled into a minefield trying to create one, and the wingnuts couldn't be more pleased. Conservatives see what they want to see, and now that McCain has made the move, they can't help but declare how brilliant it is. And once it backfires, it'll all be the media's fault because they didn't play along. After the election is over, they'll bitterly denounce McCain as a loser who wasn't able to compete with the dreaded media; but until then, they can't help but be amazed at the boldness of McCain's genius.
The Logic of Team Politics
One common theme I keep hearing from liberals is an expression of puzzlement at the fact that so many people support McCain. And they conclude that this is proof of how stupid Americans are. But why? Because, to be perfectly honest, I am a straight-ticket Democrat who would vote for absolutely any Democrat that I felt wouldn't hurt the Democratic Party. And that's really the only logical thing to do.
Because presidential elections aren't really about the two guys we're choosing from. Those people are symbols of what we're voting on. We're really voting for a bureaucracy. For judges. For ambassadors. Diplomats. Wars. Treaties. And overall, our reputation in the world and in history. That's what's really on the line here. Compared with all this, it doesn't really matter who it is that is sitting in the good seat in the Oval Office. What matters is the people they surround themselves with.
And so even if I preferred the Republican candidate over the Democratic candidate, I would almost never even think about voting for him. Because even if the Republican would do a better job as president, he'd be stuck appointing a bunch of Republican cronies to run our agencies, and those agencies would be staffed with Republican hacks, and most of the judges he'd pick would be Republican jerks, and he'd put Republican embarrassments in embassies all over the world, and all that. And sure, not all of these people would be bad. But I can guarantee that there would be a higher percentage of Republican hires I'd dislike more than the Democratic hires.
And I really can't conceive of any Democrat that would be so bad that I'd prefer this. I suppose I'd pick McCain over a Hitler-clone, but that's only because I wouldn't believe that the Hitler-clone would actually appoint Democrats to these posts (and he might appoint many of the same folks McCain would). In the grand scheme of things, there is a finite number of people who any Republican or Democrat could hire, and I like the Democratic hiring pool a heckeva lot more than the Republican one.
Majority Rules
And the same goes with our Congressmen. It really doesn't matter much who you send to Congress, because he'll just be one of many. It's unlikely that this one dude is going to do much of anything. Even the famous Congressmen who want to stand up against the status quo aren't really going to achieve much beyond impressing people who are sick of the status quo. Sure, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are radicals, but exactly what are they actually achieving?
But one big difference they can make is who controls Congress. For whatever reason, Congress decided over the years to give magical powers to whichever side has a majority, no matter how slim. So it's essential that we get as many of our guys there as possible. And that's much much MUCH more important than who the individual is or what they plan to do. The more radical your Congressman is, the less he'll be able to get anything done. But a radical Democrat counts just as much as a pliant one when it comes to the majority. Sure, it's better to have a good Democrat over a bad one, but it's almost always better to have a bad Democrat than a good Republican.
And so that's a big part of the reason why McCain and Bush can retain their support. It's not necessarily that people like them or are being fooled. It's because it's irrational to vote against all this stuff just because you don't like the guy at the top. Of course, that's not to say that most folks are really thinking it through to this level, but they don't need to. This is where the "team" aspect of politics comes in. It's an ingrained instinct in us to side with our team, even if we don't always agree with what it's doing. You might raise bloody hell to get your guy to run the team, but in the end, the team is more important than your guy.
Because presidential elections aren't really about the two guys we're choosing from. Those people are symbols of what we're voting on. We're really voting for a bureaucracy. For judges. For ambassadors. Diplomats. Wars. Treaties. And overall, our reputation in the world and in history. That's what's really on the line here. Compared with all this, it doesn't really matter who it is that is sitting in the good seat in the Oval Office. What matters is the people they surround themselves with.
And so even if I preferred the Republican candidate over the Democratic candidate, I would almost never even think about voting for him. Because even if the Republican would do a better job as president, he'd be stuck appointing a bunch of Republican cronies to run our agencies, and those agencies would be staffed with Republican hacks, and most of the judges he'd pick would be Republican jerks, and he'd put Republican embarrassments in embassies all over the world, and all that. And sure, not all of these people would be bad. But I can guarantee that there would be a higher percentage of Republican hires I'd dislike more than the Democratic hires.
And I really can't conceive of any Democrat that would be so bad that I'd prefer this. I suppose I'd pick McCain over a Hitler-clone, but that's only because I wouldn't believe that the Hitler-clone would actually appoint Democrats to these posts (and he might appoint many of the same folks McCain would). In the grand scheme of things, there is a finite number of people who any Republican or Democrat could hire, and I like the Democratic hiring pool a heckeva lot more than the Republican one.
Majority Rules
And the same goes with our Congressmen. It really doesn't matter much who you send to Congress, because he'll just be one of many. It's unlikely that this one dude is going to do much of anything. Even the famous Congressmen who want to stand up against the status quo aren't really going to achieve much beyond impressing people who are sick of the status quo. Sure, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are radicals, but exactly what are they actually achieving?
But one big difference they can make is who controls Congress. For whatever reason, Congress decided over the years to give magical powers to whichever side has a majority, no matter how slim. So it's essential that we get as many of our guys there as possible. And that's much much MUCH more important than who the individual is or what they plan to do. The more radical your Congressman is, the less he'll be able to get anything done. But a radical Democrat counts just as much as a pliant one when it comes to the majority. Sure, it's better to have a good Democrat over a bad one, but it's almost always better to have a bad Democrat than a good Republican.
And so that's a big part of the reason why McCain and Bush can retain their support. It's not necessarily that people like them or are being fooled. It's because it's irrational to vote against all this stuff just because you don't like the guy at the top. Of course, that's not to say that most folks are really thinking it through to this level, but they don't need to. This is where the "team" aspect of politics comes in. It's an ingrained instinct in us to side with our team, even if we don't always agree with what it's doing. You might raise bloody hell to get your guy to run the team, but in the end, the team is more important than your guy.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Pontius Pilate was a Wingnut
I recently wrote a post about how the dopes at RedState were extremely aggravated by the "Jesus was a community organizer, Pontius Pilate was a governor" line, and here we are a week later and they're still upset about it. Last time, we had RedState Founder Erick Erickson threatening liberals with eternal damnation if they kept saying it, and now we've got Pejman Yousefzadeh still struggling to spin this against us.
His solution? Check out this doozy:
Dwight Eisenhower was a war hero.
Adlai Stevenson was a politician from the state of Illinois.
Right. So now every politician from Illinois is no better than Adlai Stevenson (which presumably would also apply to Abraham Lincoln). And even more absurd, a POW from a bad war that we lost is the same as the Supreme Commander who saved the world from fascist Nazis. And this is so good that Pejman suggests they might want to "bumper-stickerize" it. Honestly, would even 1% of the population be able to make sense out of this one? I doubt it. I suspect "Adlai who?" would probably be the standard response.
And hey, if we came back with "Dwight Eisenhower was a war hero. Abraham Lincoln was a politician from the state of Illinois," would their heads explode? I hope so. That'd be great!
Back-Asswards Again
But of course, Pejman's got all this backwards. First off, the whole thing got started when conservatives started smearing community organizers and trumpeting Palin's experience as governor. And so the purpose of the liberal slogan was to defend community organizers, while showing that governors aren't always great. And that was it. It wasn't an attempt to say that all community organizers are Jesus or that all governors are evil. It was merely a way of defending community organizers.
But naturally, conservatives didn't get that at all. Because they're small-minded people who can't make connections of that nature. That's why they attacked community organizers in the first place. I suspect that most of them didn't even know what a community organizer was until they were told Obama was one, and so they naturally assumed it must be a bad thing because Obama was one.
So when they mocked Obama for being one, they weren't trying to smear all community organizers. That was merely a by-product of their smear on Obama. But they're much too small-minded to realize how many people they were offending with those empty attacks. Had they been told that McCain was a community organizer, everything would have been different and they'd be praising organizers as being the salt of the earth.
And so basically, when you say "community organizer" to a conservative, all they mean is Barack Obama and the anti-American radicals that they associate with Obama. And that's it. The term doesn't really have any wider meaning to them. And that's why they imagine that it's somehow blasphemy to say that Jesus was a community organizer, because to them, that's the exact same as saying Jesus was Obama. Because that's all the word means to them.
Defending War Heroes
And now we see Pejman making the same small-minded mistake. Because remember, the liberal slogan was created because conservatives had been smearing Obama for being a community organizer, and liberals wanted to defend community organizers. So the conservative equivalent of this would be if liberals were attacking McCain for being a war hero and conservatives wanted to defend war heroes.
And in this case, they'd defend war heroes by pointing out that Eisenhower was also a war hero, which would mean that it's wrong to smear war heroes. But of course, nobody is smearing McCain for being a war hero. Nobody. They might argue that being a POW doesn't make McCain a hero, but they're not smearing him for being a hero. So it makes no sense to create a slogan to defend war heroes if people weren't attacking war heroes.
Similarly, if liberals were praising Obama simply because he was a politician from Illinois, in the same way that conservatives praised Palin simply for being a Governor, then it would make sense to point out that Illinois has had a bad politician come from there. But again, nobody is praising Obama simply because he is a politician from Illinois, so it makes no sense to create a slogan denouncing politicians from Illinois. That's just not how this works.
Small Minds Think Alike
So once again, we see conservatives who have totally missed the boat because they're too small-minded to even understand what a boat is. In their small world, this wasn't about community organizers or governors or war heroes or Illinois; this was only about McCain, Palin, and Obama. And even more small-minded, it was just about conservative versus liberal. And so Pejman set-off to find some sort of link-up that would defend the conservative and attack the liberal, and this was it. And suddenly, every POW that has ever existed is instantly greater than any politician from Illinois, simply because a conservative had his feelings hurt.
And while the liberal slogan needed to be about community organizers and governors, Pejman's slogan could have been anything. It could have focused on age, and pointed out that George Washington was over fifty when he became president and Charles Manson was under fifty when he killed those people. Or it could have been a height thing, focusing on good short people and bad tall people. And hey, a "Winston Churchill was white, Idi Amin was black" slogan would have been a lot of fun. But whatever it was, it had to say that McCain had the same attribute of a good person while Obama had the attribute of a bad person; and that's it. Small minded.
And funniest of all is that this toss-off bumpersticker phrase still irks conservatives so much. Not that I get some big thrill by annoying conservatives, but it's funny to see what gets them upset. A slogan. It was just a stupid slogan. Hard working Americans are losing their homes because of greedy bankers, and these jerks couldn't care less. But create a slogan that gets their goad and you'll still see them struggling to fight it a week later. It's funny. It's sad. I'm laughing, yet I'm shaking my head. It's all so confusing.
Oh, but on the good side for us: According to Pejman, our slogan is only "quasi-blasphemous," so perhaps there's some hope for our souls yet. Perhaps we only go to quasi-Hell for that one. Erick Erickson wrongly concluded that saying the slogan was a "unforgivable sin." Perhaps now it's merely quasi-unforgivable.
His solution? Check out this doozy:
Dwight Eisenhower was a war hero.
Adlai Stevenson was a politician from the state of Illinois.
Right. So now every politician from Illinois is no better than Adlai Stevenson (which presumably would also apply to Abraham Lincoln). And even more absurd, a POW from a bad war that we lost is the same as the Supreme Commander who saved the world from fascist Nazis. And this is so good that Pejman suggests they might want to "bumper-stickerize" it. Honestly, would even 1% of the population be able to make sense out of this one? I doubt it. I suspect "Adlai who?" would probably be the standard response.
And hey, if we came back with "Dwight Eisenhower was a war hero. Abraham Lincoln was a politician from the state of Illinois," would their heads explode? I hope so. That'd be great!
Back-Asswards Again
But of course, Pejman's got all this backwards. First off, the whole thing got started when conservatives started smearing community organizers and trumpeting Palin's experience as governor. And so the purpose of the liberal slogan was to defend community organizers, while showing that governors aren't always great. And that was it. It wasn't an attempt to say that all community organizers are Jesus or that all governors are evil. It was merely a way of defending community organizers.
But naturally, conservatives didn't get that at all. Because they're small-minded people who can't make connections of that nature. That's why they attacked community organizers in the first place. I suspect that most of them didn't even know what a community organizer was until they were told Obama was one, and so they naturally assumed it must be a bad thing because Obama was one.
So when they mocked Obama for being one, they weren't trying to smear all community organizers. That was merely a by-product of their smear on Obama. But they're much too small-minded to realize how many people they were offending with those empty attacks. Had they been told that McCain was a community organizer, everything would have been different and they'd be praising organizers as being the salt of the earth.
And so basically, when you say "community organizer" to a conservative, all they mean is Barack Obama and the anti-American radicals that they associate with Obama. And that's it. The term doesn't really have any wider meaning to them. And that's why they imagine that it's somehow blasphemy to say that Jesus was a community organizer, because to them, that's the exact same as saying Jesus was Obama. Because that's all the word means to them.
Defending War Heroes
And now we see Pejman making the same small-minded mistake. Because remember, the liberal slogan was created because conservatives had been smearing Obama for being a community organizer, and liberals wanted to defend community organizers. So the conservative equivalent of this would be if liberals were attacking McCain for being a war hero and conservatives wanted to defend war heroes.
And in this case, they'd defend war heroes by pointing out that Eisenhower was also a war hero, which would mean that it's wrong to smear war heroes. But of course, nobody is smearing McCain for being a war hero. Nobody. They might argue that being a POW doesn't make McCain a hero, but they're not smearing him for being a hero. So it makes no sense to create a slogan to defend war heroes if people weren't attacking war heroes.
Similarly, if liberals were praising Obama simply because he was a politician from Illinois, in the same way that conservatives praised Palin simply for being a Governor, then it would make sense to point out that Illinois has had a bad politician come from there. But again, nobody is praising Obama simply because he is a politician from Illinois, so it makes no sense to create a slogan denouncing politicians from Illinois. That's just not how this works.
Small Minds Think Alike
So once again, we see conservatives who have totally missed the boat because they're too small-minded to even understand what a boat is. In their small world, this wasn't about community organizers or governors or war heroes or Illinois; this was only about McCain, Palin, and Obama. And even more small-minded, it was just about conservative versus liberal. And so Pejman set-off to find some sort of link-up that would defend the conservative and attack the liberal, and this was it. And suddenly, every POW that has ever existed is instantly greater than any politician from Illinois, simply because a conservative had his feelings hurt.
And while the liberal slogan needed to be about community organizers and governors, Pejman's slogan could have been anything. It could have focused on age, and pointed out that George Washington was over fifty when he became president and Charles Manson was under fifty when he killed those people. Or it could have been a height thing, focusing on good short people and bad tall people. And hey, a "Winston Churchill was white, Idi Amin was black" slogan would have been a lot of fun. But whatever it was, it had to say that McCain had the same attribute of a good person while Obama had the attribute of a bad person; and that's it. Small minded.
And funniest of all is that this toss-off bumpersticker phrase still irks conservatives so much. Not that I get some big thrill by annoying conservatives, but it's funny to see what gets them upset. A slogan. It was just a stupid slogan. Hard working Americans are losing their homes because of greedy bankers, and these jerks couldn't care less. But create a slogan that gets their goad and you'll still see them struggling to fight it a week later. It's funny. It's sad. I'm laughing, yet I'm shaking my head. It's all so confusing.
Oh, but on the good side for us: According to Pejman, our slogan is only "quasi-blasphemous," so perhaps there's some hope for our souls yet. Perhaps we only go to quasi-Hell for that one. Erick Erickson wrongly concluded that saying the slogan was a "unforgivable sin." Perhaps now it's merely quasi-unforgivable.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Blogging Against Bailouts
You can use this as my official protest against the horrendous bank bailout the Bushies are trying to shove down our throats.
There, I did my part to fight it and if this doesn't work, nothing will. I'm sure Big Money is now shaking in their boots after having read this. Sorry guys, but you forced me to do it. Better bailouts, please!
There, I did my part to fight it and if this doesn't work, nothing will. I'm sure Big Money is now shaking in their boots after having read this. Sorry guys, but you forced me to do it. Better bailouts, please!
Friday, September 19, 2008
All RedState, All the Time
I went back over to RedState to get my daily fix of the crazy, this time to see what they had to say about the whole McCain-Spain goof-up, but nothing. No mention of it at all. I guess the Management hasn't figured out what marching orders to give on this one yet. But...I did see some fun stuff anyway.
Like a post by Senator Lamar Alexander titled Democrats Ignore Need for More American Energy. The Senator writes:
"Senate Republicans have spent the past several months pushing for passage of a comprehensive energy package to help lower gas prices and move our nation to a future of clean energy independence."
Ah yes, to help lower gas prices. And of course, the only complaint he can make against Democrats is that we don't support offshore oil drilling which...wouldn't affect oil prices for about twenty years. And oddly enough, for as much as the good Senator can use his crystal ball to tell us how much oil this will produce a day (at least 3 million barrels), he fails to mention the twenty year time period this would take. Why, one would almost assume that his policy would actually help lower gas prices sometime in this decade.
Even worse, while 3 million barrels is more oil than I've ever produced, it really wouldn't make much of a dent, seeing as the rest of the world is already producing almost thirty times that much. And of course, OPEC gets to set prices to whatever they want them to be, and if those 3 million barrels actually made a dent in prices, OPEC would just dent them right back again. That's how it works. Somehow, the Supply & Demand thing doesn't seem to click-in for these guys when using real world examples.
And of course, this post kept in line with RedState's unstated policy of using a current gas problem to push for a policy that has no current implications. The truth is that RedState wants offshore drilling because that's what their masters have told them liberals hate. That's all this is about.
Obama's Spanish Language Assault
And here's an odd one from Moe Lane: Obama made a Spanish language ad attacking McCain by attacking Rush Limbaugh. Now, in our universe, the point of such an ad would be to hurt McCain with Spanish-speaking voters. But in the world of RedState, the point was to anger Rush and his dittoheads, which Obama apparently failed at because Rush would instead be upset about Palin's Yahoo account getting hacked (which Moe believes Obama is behind, based upon the Obama Action Wires that are "the verbal equivalent of DOS attacks).
And if you can believe it, the whole reason why the ad was in Spanish was apparently the most devilish part of the trick; because Obama assumed that racist Republicans would be even more upset at a Spanish language ad. Sure, McCain also has Spanish language ads and the target of this ad were surely the Hispanic voters Obama's trying to woo, but no matter. The real reason Obama made this ad was just to upset Rush Limbaugh and his listeners. What an insular world these people live in.
And why exactly would Obama pay for such an ad just to anger Rush? Moe never says. Not even a hint. It's all the sort of triple-reverse whammy that Rove wastes all his energy planning, where you offend a liberal group so they'll attack the conservative politican and thus rally the conservative base to his aide...all so they can win a slamdunk election by a percentage point. Just brilliant. Moe even refers to the ad as a "suddenly-useless poison pill," using a meaning of the term "poison pill" that completely eludes me.
And to Moe Lane, this is a HUGE setback for Obama, because the only thing that happened was that a lot of Spanish-speaking voters heard his attack against McCain. Seriously, the tone of Moe's piece is mockery of Obama, as if he's greatly upset that Rush Limbaugh didn't attack him today. But of course, all of this happened in Moe's fevered imagination. He invented Obama's absurdist motives for making this ad and then envisioned Rush ignoring the "bait" to instead lay the smack down on Obama for engaging in a cyber attack that he most certainly had no part in. Jesus, I'm not sure if we need to tell Moe to put the crackpipe down or to pick it up. Whatever it is, this dude is in major need of a quick brain fix.
And as the punchline, I just read the comments section on this one and it turns out that Rush had already discussed the ad. And as you could guess, he wasn't frothing; which really is kind of predictable. So basically, Moe wrote this post about how Obama made an ad designed to get Rush mad and Rush talked about it without getting mad; just as everyone except Moe would have predicted. When informed of this, Moe gives the grammatically odd "But I'm still betting that he'll talk about it pretty much not at all this morning." Yeah, Moe. Now that he's already discussed it, Rush will talk about it pretty much not at all. What an idiot!
Anyway, that's my daily report from RedState. And just so you know, as someone who really does live in a Red State, we're not all like this. I swear we're not. Many of us actually have brains and know how to use them.
Like a post by Senator Lamar Alexander titled Democrats Ignore Need for More American Energy. The Senator writes:
"Senate Republicans have spent the past several months pushing for passage of a comprehensive energy package to help lower gas prices and move our nation to a future of clean energy independence."
Ah yes, to help lower gas prices. And of course, the only complaint he can make against Democrats is that we don't support offshore oil drilling which...wouldn't affect oil prices for about twenty years. And oddly enough, for as much as the good Senator can use his crystal ball to tell us how much oil this will produce a day (at least 3 million barrels), he fails to mention the twenty year time period this would take. Why, one would almost assume that his policy would actually help lower gas prices sometime in this decade.
Even worse, while 3 million barrels is more oil than I've ever produced, it really wouldn't make much of a dent, seeing as the rest of the world is already producing almost thirty times that much. And of course, OPEC gets to set prices to whatever they want them to be, and if those 3 million barrels actually made a dent in prices, OPEC would just dent them right back again. That's how it works. Somehow, the Supply & Demand thing doesn't seem to click-in for these guys when using real world examples.
And of course, this post kept in line with RedState's unstated policy of using a current gas problem to push for a policy that has no current implications. The truth is that RedState wants offshore drilling because that's what their masters have told them liberals hate. That's all this is about.
Obama's Spanish Language Assault
And here's an odd one from Moe Lane: Obama made a Spanish language ad attacking McCain by attacking Rush Limbaugh. Now, in our universe, the point of such an ad would be to hurt McCain with Spanish-speaking voters. But in the world of RedState, the point was to anger Rush and his dittoheads, which Obama apparently failed at because Rush would instead be upset about Palin's Yahoo account getting hacked (which Moe believes Obama is behind, based upon the Obama Action Wires that are "the verbal equivalent of DOS attacks).
And if you can believe it, the whole reason why the ad was in Spanish was apparently the most devilish part of the trick; because Obama assumed that racist Republicans would be even more upset at a Spanish language ad. Sure, McCain also has Spanish language ads and the target of this ad were surely the Hispanic voters Obama's trying to woo, but no matter. The real reason Obama made this ad was just to upset Rush Limbaugh and his listeners. What an insular world these people live in.
And why exactly would Obama pay for such an ad just to anger Rush? Moe never says. Not even a hint. It's all the sort of triple-reverse whammy that Rove wastes all his energy planning, where you offend a liberal group so they'll attack the conservative politican and thus rally the conservative base to his aide...all so they can win a slamdunk election by a percentage point. Just brilliant. Moe even refers to the ad as a "suddenly-useless poison pill," using a meaning of the term "poison pill" that completely eludes me.
And to Moe Lane, this is a HUGE setback for Obama, because the only thing that happened was that a lot of Spanish-speaking voters heard his attack against McCain. Seriously, the tone of Moe's piece is mockery of Obama, as if he's greatly upset that Rush Limbaugh didn't attack him today. But of course, all of this happened in Moe's fevered imagination. He invented Obama's absurdist motives for making this ad and then envisioned Rush ignoring the "bait" to instead lay the smack down on Obama for engaging in a cyber attack that he most certainly had no part in. Jesus, I'm not sure if we need to tell Moe to put the crackpipe down or to pick it up. Whatever it is, this dude is in major need of a quick brain fix.
And as the punchline, I just read the comments section on this one and it turns out that Rush had already discussed the ad. And as you could guess, he wasn't frothing; which really is kind of predictable. So basically, Moe wrote this post about how Obama made an ad designed to get Rush mad and Rush talked about it without getting mad; just as everyone except Moe would have predicted. When informed of this, Moe gives the grammatically odd "But I'm still betting that he'll talk about it pretty much not at all this morning." Yeah, Moe. Now that he's already discussed it, Rush will talk about it pretty much not at all. What an idiot!
Anyway, that's my daily report from RedState. And just so you know, as someone who really does live in a Red State, we're not all like this. I swear we're not. Many of us actually have brains and know how to use them.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Free Market Freak Out
As I mentioned in my last post, I'm completely addicted to RedState. It's just too funny. This time, I specifically went there to see how these free-market freaks would react to the AIG bailout, and wow, I wasn't disappointed. RedState Founder Erick Erickson's post on the matter was simply titled Disgusting. Disgusting. Disgusting, and suggested that Ben Bernanke be flogged in the streets and exiled to a communist country. He even went as far as to thank Dear Leader for this...sarcastically. Yeah, it's that bad.
But the best part was reading the comments section of that post. Because for as much as this was a dreadful option, it was the only sensible one available. Yet...these people are freakishly anti-government, particularly when it comes to their imagined free-markets. They've been firmly brainwashed into believing that the only real problem the markets can have is the government, and so the idea that the government can fix anything is simply a mind blowing event. It's like if PETA had to admit that eating more beef would prevent animal cruelty.
And yet for all their hand wringing and teeth gnashing, there really wasn't much of a sense of who was to blame for all this. Were someone who was completely ignorant of finances to read the messages on that board (which I'm sure was often the case), the best they could assume was that the problem was entirely caused by the government and stupid investors who deserve to suffer. Oddly, the word "greed" never appeared once in anyone's comment.
The Comments
We've got commenter Red Oakster blaming the accountants, saying "If the Feds reformed mark to market accounting rules they would have been able to solve much of this problem at much lower cost. Just because an asset is illiquid should not require the owner to value it at the level of a lowball or even non-existent bid." Yeah, because a truly free market should be allowed to pretend that junk investments are still worth as much as they stupidly paid for them. And hey, how could markets function if investors actually knew what they were buying?
BigGator5 says "This is all the more reason to elect people who will never do this again"...without actually explaining what these elected people should have done or how we can tell which people are the right ones to elect. John McCain has now reversed himself overnight and admits that it needed to be done. And not only did he support the laws that allowed this to happen, he admits that he didn't even know it was happening. Of course, rereading BigGator's sentence, I see that the use of the word "again" could indicate that he thinks it's ok to elect people who did this, just as long as they never do it again.
When TomOConnor makes the mistake of asking if AIG's customers and counter-parties should be allowed to suffer, he is met with the all-purpose conservative mantra "Caveat Emptor" (which I believe is Latin for "Fuck Off, Loser") and told that his suggestion is "utter crap" and "bull." A third commenter suggests that customers would be safe because the insurance business is highly regulated, which corresponds with the Law of Conservative Blindness, which dictates that conservatives will neither praise or demonize any regulation which prevents a free-market disaster from being worse; they will simply assume it was part of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand and imagine the markets would have fixed it anyway.
And throughout the board there are comments insisting that this must be a bad deal, because no other company wanted to loan AIG the money. Because there are TONS of insurance conglomerates with $85 billion sitting around in case one of their competitors needed a little cash. And no, it didn't seem to occur to them that they're relying on the same Wall Street Wizards who got us into this as the guideline for determining good business decisions. Fool me twice, shame on, shame on...government is the problem.
More Borg Brain
At this point, I'll just finish up by creating a paragraph based on a few random sentences, posted in the order I found them in.
Until they quit interfering with financial markets, the true economic recovery cannot begin. Sad indeed. The invisible hand was not meant to be Bush's hand. This is only going to perpetuate the problem, not solve it. I've always believed that the free market can correct any problem -- but there's very little free-market at work here. It's not being given a chance. This is bad for the GOP. The timing really couldn't be worse. It's a known fact that wall street is infested with dems....I'm not saying that is being orchestrated....I'm just saying....
And I think that just about sums it up. The problem clearly has something to do with Bush's government interference and the Dem's Wall Street infestation, which made it necessary for them to chose a solution that made the problem worse. If only the free-markets were finally given a chance to succeed...
P.S. For anyone curious, yes, this post got bloggered and several different versions were posted online. And no, I'm not at all happy having to recreate it.
But the best part was reading the comments section of that post. Because for as much as this was a dreadful option, it was the only sensible one available. Yet...these people are freakishly anti-government, particularly when it comes to their imagined free-markets. They've been firmly brainwashed into believing that the only real problem the markets can have is the government, and so the idea that the government can fix anything is simply a mind blowing event. It's like if PETA had to admit that eating more beef would prevent animal cruelty.
And yet for all their hand wringing and teeth gnashing, there really wasn't much of a sense of who was to blame for all this. Were someone who was completely ignorant of finances to read the messages on that board (which I'm sure was often the case), the best they could assume was that the problem was entirely caused by the government and stupid investors who deserve to suffer. Oddly, the word "greed" never appeared once in anyone's comment.
The Comments
We've got commenter Red Oakster blaming the accountants, saying "If the Feds reformed mark to market accounting rules they would have been able to solve much of this problem at much lower cost. Just because an asset is illiquid should not require the owner to value it at the level of a lowball or even non-existent bid." Yeah, because a truly free market should be allowed to pretend that junk investments are still worth as much as they stupidly paid for them. And hey, how could markets function if investors actually knew what they were buying?
BigGator5 says "This is all the more reason to elect people who will never do this again"...without actually explaining what these elected people should have done or how we can tell which people are the right ones to elect. John McCain has now reversed himself overnight and admits that it needed to be done. And not only did he support the laws that allowed this to happen, he admits that he didn't even know it was happening. Of course, rereading BigGator's sentence, I see that the use of the word "again" could indicate that he thinks it's ok to elect people who did this, just as long as they never do it again.
When TomOConnor makes the mistake of asking if AIG's customers and counter-parties should be allowed to suffer, he is met with the all-purpose conservative mantra "Caveat Emptor" (which I believe is Latin for "Fuck Off, Loser") and told that his suggestion is "utter crap" and "bull." A third commenter suggests that customers would be safe because the insurance business is highly regulated, which corresponds with the Law of Conservative Blindness, which dictates that conservatives will neither praise or demonize any regulation which prevents a free-market disaster from being worse; they will simply assume it was part of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand and imagine the markets would have fixed it anyway.
And throughout the board there are comments insisting that this must be a bad deal, because no other company wanted to loan AIG the money. Because there are TONS of insurance conglomerates with $85 billion sitting around in case one of their competitors needed a little cash. And no, it didn't seem to occur to them that they're relying on the same Wall Street Wizards who got us into this as the guideline for determining good business decisions. Fool me twice, shame on, shame on...government is the problem.
More Borg Brain
At this point, I'll just finish up by creating a paragraph based on a few random sentences, posted in the order I found them in.
Until they quit interfering with financial markets, the true economic recovery cannot begin. Sad indeed. The invisible hand was not meant to be Bush's hand. This is only going to perpetuate the problem, not solve it. I've always believed that the free market can correct any problem -- but there's very little free-market at work here. It's not being given a chance. This is bad for the GOP. The timing really couldn't be worse. It's a known fact that wall street is infested with dems....I'm not saying that is being orchestrated....I'm just saying....
And I think that just about sums it up. The problem clearly has something to do with Bush's government interference and the Dem's Wall Street infestation, which made it necessary for them to chose a solution that made the problem worse. If only the free-markets were finally given a chance to succeed...
P.S. For anyone curious, yes, this post got bloggered and several different versions were posted online. And no, I'm not at all happy having to recreate it.
RedState: The Borg Blog
I really think that one of the best cures to America's drug problem would be to get more junkies addicted to reading RedState. If having one's brain fried on a regular basis is the goal, there really isn't a much better stream of mindblowing goodness than a healthy dose of rightwing nuttery. And after it's over, rather than dealing with a big downer, you finish with the smug satisfaction of knowing that none of your problems could be as bad as being stuck with a modern conservative's thought processes.
For today's fun, I'll highlight two RedState posts railing against the Energy Compromise bill that is apparently being debated in Congress (Full Disclosure: I don't actually follow policy debates very closely and know very little about this bill).
The first post is by The Directors (an ominous sounding cabal if there ever was one), in a post titled John McCain Would Undermine His Credibility And Election If He Endorsed the Energy Compromise. Yeah, because John McCain still has credibility left to be undermined. I'm sure he's keeping it in an undisclosed location to be saved for a rainy day.
According to The Directors, McCain's pro-drilling energy policy is the main reason he's at the top of the polls. Some people would suggest that it was Palin's celebrity bounce that did the trick, or possibly McCain's relentlessly vile attacks against Obama, but they would clearly be mistaken. It's the energy policy. And the argument goes that McCain will lose the election if he backtracks and allows Congress to limit drilling in any way. Who knew that his lead was so precarious?
The second post is written by Congressman Mike Pence (R-Crazytown) in A Call To Arms regarding this same energy bill. In it, Congressman Pence rails against "Drill-Nothing Democrats" because they won't allow oil companies to drill everywhere. Seriously, he writes "The drill-nothing Democrat (sic) Congress has brought a bill that actually includes basically “drill-almost-nothing” provisions," as if we're supposed to be oblivious to the obvious contradiction that is that sentence. On a sidenote, will Republicans ever learn that funny nicknames should only be used when they're actually funny? I doubt it. Humor never was there strong suit.
Highlighting Redundancies
And it's obvious that these two posts were written by the same brain. Let's look at the similarities.
I'll start with the funniest notion of them all: The Democrats are "playing politics" with this bill. It's like these doofs are so accustomed to tossing out nonsense phrases that they can't even remember what they mean anymore. Typically, "playing politics" means that you're using a policy debate primarily as a way of hurting your opponents politically. But in this case, Democrats don't think we should drill offshore but have proposed a compromise bill that allows limited drilling.
So exactly where are the politics here? They never say. I guess it could be argued that Dems are playing politics by giving Republicans some of what they want as a means of defanging their attacks. But that's a fairly weak charge, especially coming from a side that's already acknowledged that McCain's strongest political asset is his pro-drilling policy. If anything, it sounds like the "playing politics" line is really just a cheap attempt to bring politics into a policy debate.
Another laughable argument found in both posts is the derision they make towards the idea of allowing states to determine if oil companies can drill off of their shores. As the good Congressman says "I guess states are just going to allow drilling out of the goodness of their hearts." Or they'd do it if the people of those states actually wanted it to happen, which they don't. And so it looks like Democrats are allowing communistic democracy decide what happens in this country. States Rights who?
And a final similarity I'll mention is what wasn't mentioned in either post: The effect offshore drilling will have on current oil prices. Or more importantly, the fact that this issue has NOTHING to do with current oil prices. Or that it'd be at least ten years before we saw any of this oil and much longer before it actually had an effect on oil prices. None of this is even discussed. The merits of their policy are never mentioned. Not once.
In fact, a quickie search of RedState really didn't turn up much discussion of impact at all. They were all convinced of how necessary this policy is, but most of the specifics amounted to insults of environmentalists and weak-kneed politicians who oppose drilling. And then there was this post by a former offshore oil worker named "Snakebite" (whose name is as original as it is tough), who argued that we should lift the ban immediately in case there might still be working fields from before the moratorium that might allow us to get lots of oil on the markets within one year. And if you think we can't, then you are a doom & gloom ex-hippy who underestimates the American Spirit. And yeah, those are the sort of feelgood vagaries I want to base our energy policies on.
But really, the reasons don't matter for these people. It's all about principle. About getting big government out of the way, even if big government is basing its decisions on what individual citizens want. As Snakebite says, the oil in the ground doesn't belong to all Americans. It belongs to the Americans who pump it out. And anyone who doesn't do so "needs to keep their nose out of our business and get out of our way!" Because "Mind Your Beeswax" has always been a successful government model throughout history.
For today's fun, I'll highlight two RedState posts railing against the Energy Compromise bill that is apparently being debated in Congress (Full Disclosure: I don't actually follow policy debates very closely and know very little about this bill).
The first post is by The Directors (an ominous sounding cabal if there ever was one), in a post titled John McCain Would Undermine His Credibility And Election If He Endorsed the Energy Compromise. Yeah, because John McCain still has credibility left to be undermined. I'm sure he's keeping it in an undisclosed location to be saved for a rainy day.
According to The Directors, McCain's pro-drilling energy policy is the main reason he's at the top of the polls. Some people would suggest that it was Palin's celebrity bounce that did the trick, or possibly McCain's relentlessly vile attacks against Obama, but they would clearly be mistaken. It's the energy policy. And the argument goes that McCain will lose the election if he backtracks and allows Congress to limit drilling in any way. Who knew that his lead was so precarious?
The second post is written by Congressman Mike Pence (R-Crazytown) in A Call To Arms regarding this same energy bill. In it, Congressman Pence rails against "Drill-Nothing Democrats" because they won't allow oil companies to drill everywhere. Seriously, he writes "The drill-nothing Democrat (sic) Congress has brought a bill that actually includes basically “drill-almost-nothing” provisions," as if we're supposed to be oblivious to the obvious contradiction that is that sentence. On a sidenote, will Republicans ever learn that funny nicknames should only be used when they're actually funny? I doubt it. Humor never was there strong suit.
Highlighting Redundancies
And it's obvious that these two posts were written by the same brain. Let's look at the similarities.
I'll start with the funniest notion of them all: The Democrats are "playing politics" with this bill. It's like these doofs are so accustomed to tossing out nonsense phrases that they can't even remember what they mean anymore. Typically, "playing politics" means that you're using a policy debate primarily as a way of hurting your opponents politically. But in this case, Democrats don't think we should drill offshore but have proposed a compromise bill that allows limited drilling.
So exactly where are the politics here? They never say. I guess it could be argued that Dems are playing politics by giving Republicans some of what they want as a means of defanging their attacks. But that's a fairly weak charge, especially coming from a side that's already acknowledged that McCain's strongest political asset is his pro-drilling policy. If anything, it sounds like the "playing politics" line is really just a cheap attempt to bring politics into a policy debate.
Another laughable argument found in both posts is the derision they make towards the idea of allowing states to determine if oil companies can drill off of their shores. As the good Congressman says "I guess states are just going to allow drilling out of the goodness of their hearts." Or they'd do it if the people of those states actually wanted it to happen, which they don't. And so it looks like Democrats are allowing communistic democracy decide what happens in this country. States Rights who?
And a final similarity I'll mention is what wasn't mentioned in either post: The effect offshore drilling will have on current oil prices. Or more importantly, the fact that this issue has NOTHING to do with current oil prices. Or that it'd be at least ten years before we saw any of this oil and much longer before it actually had an effect on oil prices. None of this is even discussed. The merits of their policy are never mentioned. Not once.
In fact, a quickie search of RedState really didn't turn up much discussion of impact at all. They were all convinced of how necessary this policy is, but most of the specifics amounted to insults of environmentalists and weak-kneed politicians who oppose drilling. And then there was this post by a former offshore oil worker named "Snakebite" (whose name is as original as it is tough), who argued that we should lift the ban immediately in case there might still be working fields from before the moratorium that might allow us to get lots of oil on the markets within one year. And if you think we can't, then you are a doom & gloom ex-hippy who underestimates the American Spirit. And yeah, those are the sort of feelgood vagaries I want to base our energy policies on.
But really, the reasons don't matter for these people. It's all about principle. About getting big government out of the way, even if big government is basing its decisions on what individual citizens want. As Snakebite says, the oil in the ground doesn't belong to all Americans. It belongs to the Americans who pump it out. And anyone who doesn't do so "needs to keep their nose out of our business and get out of our way!" Because "Mind Your Beeswax" has always been a successful government model throughout history.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Substitute Tickets
Via Zandar, who has been doing quite a job fighting The Stupid, I just read a post in Huffington Post titled Why Replacing Biden With Hillary Makes Perfect Sense For Obama.
Here's the money quote:
It's a pretty safe bet that an Obama/Clinton ticket would capture virtually all of these loyal Clintonistas. It's also a safe bet that many of those highly coveted 18-49-year-old women who polls show migrated to McPalin this past week would drop the spunky little hockey mom in a heartbeat for Hillary. Lastly, it's an even safer bet that Obama's current voters would stick with him as well. So, where's the downside? Show me a Democrat, today, who'd dump Obama for McCain if Biden was replaced with Clinton? They don't exist.
He goes on to suggest that we "roll the dice" and "out McCain McCain." And wow, I think that's such a great idea that I'm not sure why he stops with Biden. I mean hey, if we're going to fix the party ticket, how about we go with a double-whammy and swap Obama off of the ticket too? Call me crazy, but I'm thinking that if we don't give Schwarzenegger-Clinton a chance in November, we might as well just pack up the bags and go home right now.
Not only would the 18-million Hillary voters be ecstatic, but we would get every single person who has ever seen a Schwarzenegger film, including the foreigners. And hey, the Obama supporters should just be happy he got the nomination. There is NO WAY any of them would change their minds now. Not a chance. He'll just tell all his cult members that Arnold is their new leader and they'll gladly follow right along. Simply as that.
And then if on Election Day we surprised everyone by replacing Clinton with Emeril Lagasse...BAM! We'd really be on to something. Nobody could stop Schwarzenegger-Lagasse. Unless, of course, Palin replaced McCain with Ronald Reagan's Ghost. But that's a chance that we'll just have to take. Roll the dice!
Here's the money quote:
It's a pretty safe bet that an Obama/Clinton ticket would capture virtually all of these loyal Clintonistas. It's also a safe bet that many of those highly coveted 18-49-year-old women who polls show migrated to McPalin this past week would drop the spunky little hockey mom in a heartbeat for Hillary. Lastly, it's an even safer bet that Obama's current voters would stick with him as well. So, where's the downside? Show me a Democrat, today, who'd dump Obama for McCain if Biden was replaced with Clinton? They don't exist.
He goes on to suggest that we "roll the dice" and "out McCain McCain." And wow, I think that's such a great idea that I'm not sure why he stops with Biden. I mean hey, if we're going to fix the party ticket, how about we go with a double-whammy and swap Obama off of the ticket too? Call me crazy, but I'm thinking that if we don't give Schwarzenegger-Clinton a chance in November, we might as well just pack up the bags and go home right now.
Not only would the 18-million Hillary voters be ecstatic, but we would get every single person who has ever seen a Schwarzenegger film, including the foreigners. And hey, the Obama supporters should just be happy he got the nomination. There is NO WAY any of them would change their minds now. Not a chance. He'll just tell all his cult members that Arnold is their new leader and they'll gladly follow right along. Simply as that.
And then if on Election Day we surprised everyone by replacing Clinton with Emeril Lagasse...BAM! We'd really be on to something. Nobody could stop Schwarzenegger-Lagasse. Unless, of course, Palin replaced McCain with Ronald Reagan's Ghost. But that's a chance that we'll just have to take. Roll the dice!
Monday, September 15, 2008
How to Surf Newscycles
I just wrote a comment at Hullabaloo that everyone seemed to like, so I guess I'll just post it here. Tristero wrote a post about how Obama isn't going far enough in attacking McCain because the polls have turned against him. Below is my comment.
Look Tristero, I see what you're getting at, but you've got to get out of the mindset that says we need to win every newscycle. That was a mistake Hillary made and Obama didn't. Look how that turned out. And the thing is, if you're playing a long-term game like Obama is, sometimes you're going to lose a few newscycles. Sometimes, your opponent will ride a big wave and make things look bad for you. But the absolute worst thing you can do is to play a short-term game that says you have to win every newscycle.
The next thing you know, you're proposing idiotic gas tax holidays, insulting experts, downing shots with "regular folks," and pumping gas into pick-up trucks that aren't owned by the guy driving it. And while that might score you a few points in the current newscycle, you'll end up embarrassing yourself in the long run. Hillary ended up losing the nomination, and even worse, the respect of many former supporters. She destroyed a reputation she had worked a lifetime to create in order to win a newscycle in March. I'm sure she'd agree that it wasn't worth it.
Look, the Palin thing will play itself out. She was the shiny new thing and her star is already beginning to dim, and will soon be a weight pulling McCain down. Meanwhile, McCain's campaign is digging itself into a deep hole, in a desperate bid to win every newscycle. I say, let him do it. As it is, the strong ad that Obama just came out with wouldn't have worked two weeks ago. Next week, if McCain continues his slimey campaign, Obama can release even stronger ads that help bury him deeper.
And the longer McCain thinks his negativity is the way to go, the better. Previous Republican nominees only had their surrogates say this crap, while the nominee stayed clean. But Republicans want Obama as crippled as possible, so they're having their chief spokesman McCain do all the smearing. This isn't helping him. Sure, he won a few newscycles, but people are going to really start rejecting the news they're hearing from him. Obama could have tried to stop this by inventing some zany PR stunt to outdo the Palin Gimmick; or he could just bide his time and give McCain more rope to hang himself with. I'm glad he went with the rope.
While it might feel good to win every newscycle and always be on top of the wave, that is impossible to sustain. A good surfer knows how to pick and choose his wave and won't try to grab everything that comes along. And I strongly believe that, while McCain has been riding a big wave since the convention, he's about to end up eating sand before he knows it. And if he plays things like he has in the past, Obama will be riding high when that happens.
Look Tristero, I see what you're getting at, but you've got to get out of the mindset that says we need to win every newscycle. That was a mistake Hillary made and Obama didn't. Look how that turned out. And the thing is, if you're playing a long-term game like Obama is, sometimes you're going to lose a few newscycles. Sometimes, your opponent will ride a big wave and make things look bad for you. But the absolute worst thing you can do is to play a short-term game that says you have to win every newscycle.
The next thing you know, you're proposing idiotic gas tax holidays, insulting experts, downing shots with "regular folks," and pumping gas into pick-up trucks that aren't owned by the guy driving it. And while that might score you a few points in the current newscycle, you'll end up embarrassing yourself in the long run. Hillary ended up losing the nomination, and even worse, the respect of many former supporters. She destroyed a reputation she had worked a lifetime to create in order to win a newscycle in March. I'm sure she'd agree that it wasn't worth it.
Look, the Palin thing will play itself out. She was the shiny new thing and her star is already beginning to dim, and will soon be a weight pulling McCain down. Meanwhile, McCain's campaign is digging itself into a deep hole, in a desperate bid to win every newscycle. I say, let him do it. As it is, the strong ad that Obama just came out with wouldn't have worked two weeks ago. Next week, if McCain continues his slimey campaign, Obama can release even stronger ads that help bury him deeper.
And the longer McCain thinks his negativity is the way to go, the better. Previous Republican nominees only had their surrogates say this crap, while the nominee stayed clean. But Republicans want Obama as crippled as possible, so they're having their chief spokesman McCain do all the smearing. This isn't helping him. Sure, he won a few newscycles, but people are going to really start rejecting the news they're hearing from him. Obama could have tried to stop this by inventing some zany PR stunt to outdo the Palin Gimmick; or he could just bide his time and give McCain more rope to hang himself with. I'm glad he went with the rope.
While it might feel good to win every newscycle and always be on top of the wave, that is impossible to sustain. A good surfer knows how to pick and choose his wave and won't try to grab everything that comes along. And I strongly believe that, while McCain has been riding a big wave since the convention, he's about to end up eating sand before he knows it. And if he plays things like he has in the past, Obama will be riding high when that happens.
Fiscal Irresponsibility for Fun & Profit
Hey, guess what guys. I just got a $70 billion loan to help ease a credit shortage I just recently found myself in due to some poor investments that, in hindsight, I probably shouldn't have made. Like that plan to drill for diamonds on the moon; not as feasible as I had first imagined. And then there was the dough I plopped into the Alan Keyes for President fund. Won't be seeing any return on that investment, at least not this election cycle, anyway. Oh, and as it turns out, it's not just Nigerian princes you can't trust. The ones in Cameroon are no good either. Who knew?
Anyway, long story short, I suddenly found myself with a smaller asset portfolio than I had tricked myself into believing, while at the same time it began to dawn on my creditors that having the middle name "Money" doesn't actually guarantee that I will always have some (and yes, my full name is Doctor Money Biobrain). And so there I was, hat in hand, ready to be tossed to the wolves, when I got a lucky break. Turns out that there were loads of bigtime money guys who had invested billions in my blog stocks, and realized that if I was totally broke, I might need to get a real job and wouldn't be able to keep up the high quality of my blog. And if my blog went down, the Street would come down with me.
And so they bailed me out; for all $70 billion I needed. To be honest, I was only $65 billion in the hole, but hey, a man needs his beer money. So I'll be pocketing the difference. Pretty sweet huh. And all I had to do was to act incredibly irresponsible at the same time that everyone else was acting incredibly irresponsible. It's like magic. I can't wait until it's time to rinse and repeat. Next time, I'll go for a cool $100 billion. I love zeroes.
Anyway, long story short, I suddenly found myself with a smaller asset portfolio than I had tricked myself into believing, while at the same time it began to dawn on my creditors that having the middle name "Money" doesn't actually guarantee that I will always have some (and yes, my full name is Doctor Money Biobrain). And so there I was, hat in hand, ready to be tossed to the wolves, when I got a lucky break. Turns out that there were loads of bigtime money guys who had invested billions in my blog stocks, and realized that if I was totally broke, I might need to get a real job and wouldn't be able to keep up the high quality of my blog. And if my blog went down, the Street would come down with me.
And so they bailed me out; for all $70 billion I needed. To be honest, I was only $65 billion in the hole, but hey, a man needs his beer money. So I'll be pocketing the difference. Pretty sweet huh. And all I had to do was to act incredibly irresponsible at the same time that everyone else was acting incredibly irresponsible. It's like magic. I can't wait until it's time to rinse and repeat. Next time, I'll go for a cool $100 billion. I love zeroes.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Satan is a Community Organizer
For whatever reason, conservatives don't do irony. They don't understand how it works, or what it's for, or when it's being used. I suspect that this isn't a coincidence. They're conservatives because they're so self-absorbed in their own small-minded greatness, which is why they imagine the world should allow them to do whatever the hell they please. And so it just makes sense that they wouldn't understand how to think outside the narrow confines of a particular statement enough to see how its true intent mocks the literal claim of the statement.
And so it is with RedState's Erick Erickson, who attempts to parse the "Jesus was a community organizer, Pontius Pilate was a governor" line, as a way of showing how this is bad for Democrats. Now granted, I personally thought the line was a bit too sappy for my taste and don't think it should be repeated too often. Sure, it was funny the first time. But it loses its bite each time, and could be misconstrued.
But the strength of the line is obvious from Erickson's reaction to it. It clearly got under his skin. Why? Because it's the exact sort of bumpersticker logic that his team likes so much. It's quick, gets an easy laugh, and when you think about it, it has a definite logic to it. In fact, for as much as I don't think the line should be repeated too often, it really is better than most of the bumpersticker slogans the Republicans come up with (Freedom Isn't Free, anyone). Usually, it only takes a little thought to realize how stupid their slogans are; which is obviously more thought than is readily available to them.
And worst of all for Erickson, is that he then has to spend 440 words to knock back a quickie little slogan. And that's the sort of trap that usually dooms Democrats. And for much as the RedStaters only know how to frame each post as an offensive attack, it's obvious that he's totally on defense on this one. He really HATES that slogan. And I suspect that the part that really bugs him is that his inner conscious (which surely is hidden quite deep) really does see how his team is closer to Pontius Pilate than to Jesus. And so he has to thrash around, desperately searching for some way of beating back that creeping feeling he has that he just got totally burned.
Lucifer, Our Hero
And if it wasn't bad enough that Erickson was even bothering to knock back that slogan, his argument against it is simply dreadful. It basically amounts to this: Saul Alinsky, a famous grassroots organizer, once wrote that Lucifer was the very first radical. And that means that Lucifer was a community organizer. And so by saying that Jesus was a community organizer, we're saying he's like Satan.
You think I'm shitting you? I quote: "To say Christ is a community organizer treads too near comparing Him to Satan." And wow, just wow. That's a real mind blower right there. And all based upon the fact that a famous organizer wrote that Lucifer was the first radical. But of course, as Wikipedia points out, Alinsky was being ironic. It was a little joke. I mean, come on! It ends with him referencing the fact that Lucifer's radicalism got him banished to Hell. Are we really to imagine that Alinsky thought highly of this outcome?
Unfortunately for everyone, conservatives can't comprehend these sort of jokes. Were they to understand irony, they'd have the brains to realize what douchebags they really are and then I wouldn't have anyone to mock on my blog anymore.
Saul Alinsky: Admitted Fraudster
But Erickson didn't stop there. No, there was his explanation for why Lucifer really was a community organizer. I quote:
"Lucifer was a community organizer in the Alinsky model. Lucifer convinced Adam and Eve of a reality not quite real and caused the world's problems. That is what a community organizer does. He convinces people that a problem barely perceived is very real and incites the community to fix the problem -- no matter that the problem may be nonexistent or, if existent, a small matter. That is why Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer."
That's right. Saul Alinsky, famous grassroots organizer, dedicated his book to Lucifer because Alinsky was admitting that organizers don't do anything except to make communities fix non-existent problems. Right. It's not enough that we're to imagine that Alinsky seriously dedicated his book to Lucifer, but that Alinsky did so as an outright admission that he was a fraud. Right.
And just to set the record straight, according to the Wikipedia: Talk page, the book wasn't dedicated to Lucifer. It was dedicated to Irene. The Lucifer part was on the next page, along with quotes from some other people. Now, perhaps Irene was also a fraudster community organizer who caused the world's problems, but Erickson doesn't say so, so I don't know what to think.
Sulphertime!
And lest you think Erickson ended there, you'd be wrong. Oh no, he was so burned up about this dreaded slogan that he had to steal a page from every angry preacher you've ever seen, using the threat of fire and brimstone to warn us away from ever using it again. For you see, by suggesting that both Jesus and Obama were community organizers, we are "equating" them, which is offensive and blasphemous. Presumably, this rule would also apply to people who say that Jesus was a carpenter; though Erickson doesn't say.
And here's how Erickson ends this high holy warning:
"Blasphemy is the eternal, unforgivable sin. You continue this analogy at your peril and at my political victory. But your soul is far more important than any political victory. So I suggest you stop. And if this post just emboldens you to make the comparison even more, you are most likely already lost."
Wow, thanks for the warning, Erick. I had no idea. But I've got to admit that this "unforgivable sin" thing kind of threw me for a loop. I mean, God will forgive murder, rape, and the re-election of Bush; yet won't forgive us if we suggest that Obama had the same job as Jesus? Really?? I know I'm just a dumb atheist here, but I really don't see how it works that way.
And sure enough, I looked it up and it turns out that Erickson was in WAAAY over his head when he tossed out that threat. The best summary of the "unforgiveable sin" rule Erickson was trying to invoke is that God won't forgive you if you reject him and don't want to be forgiven. And that just makes sense, as it seems a bit presumptuous to be forgiving people who don't want to be forgiven; even for an all-mighty creator. And so Erickson got that part totally wrong and his god might still forgive us for saying that Jesus was a community organizer. Whew! That was a close one.
But still, the fact that Erickson had to pull out all the stops with this eternal damnation nonsense is the best proof of how much he's afraid of that slogan. I mean, geez. As far as blasphemy goes, this doesn't even register on the meter. The only people equating Obama with Jesus are conservatives like Erickson, which they do as a derisive strawman to explain why people like Obama so much. And the worst part for Erickson is the deep down realization that he's not the grassroots agitator he feels like, but has been on the side of the Establishment this whole time...and yet still, there is no Heaven on earth.
And so it is with RedState's Erick Erickson, who attempts to parse the "Jesus was a community organizer, Pontius Pilate was a governor" line, as a way of showing how this is bad for Democrats. Now granted, I personally thought the line was a bit too sappy for my taste and don't think it should be repeated too often. Sure, it was funny the first time. But it loses its bite each time, and could be misconstrued.
But the strength of the line is obvious from Erickson's reaction to it. It clearly got under his skin. Why? Because it's the exact sort of bumpersticker logic that his team likes so much. It's quick, gets an easy laugh, and when you think about it, it has a definite logic to it. In fact, for as much as I don't think the line should be repeated too often, it really is better than most of the bumpersticker slogans the Republicans come up with (Freedom Isn't Free, anyone). Usually, it only takes a little thought to realize how stupid their slogans are; which is obviously more thought than is readily available to them.
And worst of all for Erickson, is that he then has to spend 440 words to knock back a quickie little slogan. And that's the sort of trap that usually dooms Democrats. And for much as the RedStaters only know how to frame each post as an offensive attack, it's obvious that he's totally on defense on this one. He really HATES that slogan. And I suspect that the part that really bugs him is that his inner conscious (which surely is hidden quite deep) really does see how his team is closer to Pontius Pilate than to Jesus. And so he has to thrash around, desperately searching for some way of beating back that creeping feeling he has that he just got totally burned.
Lucifer, Our Hero
And if it wasn't bad enough that Erickson was even bothering to knock back that slogan, his argument against it is simply dreadful. It basically amounts to this: Saul Alinsky, a famous grassroots organizer, once wrote that Lucifer was the very first radical. And that means that Lucifer was a community organizer. And so by saying that Jesus was a community organizer, we're saying he's like Satan.
You think I'm shitting you? I quote: "To say Christ is a community organizer treads too near comparing Him to Satan." And wow, just wow. That's a real mind blower right there. And all based upon the fact that a famous organizer wrote that Lucifer was the first radical. But of course, as Wikipedia points out, Alinsky was being ironic. It was a little joke. I mean, come on! It ends with him referencing the fact that Lucifer's radicalism got him banished to Hell. Are we really to imagine that Alinsky thought highly of this outcome?
Unfortunately for everyone, conservatives can't comprehend these sort of jokes. Were they to understand irony, they'd have the brains to realize what douchebags they really are and then I wouldn't have anyone to mock on my blog anymore.
Saul Alinsky: Admitted Fraudster
But Erickson didn't stop there. No, there was his explanation for why Lucifer really was a community organizer. I quote:
"Lucifer was a community organizer in the Alinsky model. Lucifer convinced Adam and Eve of a reality not quite real and caused the world's problems. That is what a community organizer does. He convinces people that a problem barely perceived is very real and incites the community to fix the problem -- no matter that the problem may be nonexistent or, if existent, a small matter. That is why Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer."
That's right. Saul Alinsky, famous grassroots organizer, dedicated his book to Lucifer because Alinsky was admitting that organizers don't do anything except to make communities fix non-existent problems. Right. It's not enough that we're to imagine that Alinsky seriously dedicated his book to Lucifer, but that Alinsky did so as an outright admission that he was a fraud. Right.
And just to set the record straight, according to the Wikipedia: Talk page, the book wasn't dedicated to Lucifer. It was dedicated to Irene. The Lucifer part was on the next page, along with quotes from some other people. Now, perhaps Irene was also a fraudster community organizer who caused the world's problems, but Erickson doesn't say so, so I don't know what to think.
Sulphertime!
And lest you think Erickson ended there, you'd be wrong. Oh no, he was so burned up about this dreaded slogan that he had to steal a page from every angry preacher you've ever seen, using the threat of fire and brimstone to warn us away from ever using it again. For you see, by suggesting that both Jesus and Obama were community organizers, we are "equating" them, which is offensive and blasphemous. Presumably, this rule would also apply to people who say that Jesus was a carpenter; though Erickson doesn't say.
And here's how Erickson ends this high holy warning:
"Blasphemy is the eternal, unforgivable sin. You continue this analogy at your peril and at my political victory. But your soul is far more important than any political victory. So I suggest you stop. And if this post just emboldens you to make the comparison even more, you are most likely already lost."
Wow, thanks for the warning, Erick. I had no idea. But I've got to admit that this "unforgivable sin" thing kind of threw me for a loop. I mean, God will forgive murder, rape, and the re-election of Bush; yet won't forgive us if we suggest that Obama had the same job as Jesus? Really?? I know I'm just a dumb atheist here, but I really don't see how it works that way.
And sure enough, I looked it up and it turns out that Erickson was in WAAAY over his head when he tossed out that threat. The best summary of the "unforgiveable sin" rule Erickson was trying to invoke is that God won't forgive you if you reject him and don't want to be forgiven. And that just makes sense, as it seems a bit presumptuous to be forgiving people who don't want to be forgiven; even for an all-mighty creator. And so Erickson got that part totally wrong and his god might still forgive us for saying that Jesus was a community organizer. Whew! That was a close one.
But still, the fact that Erickson had to pull out all the stops with this eternal damnation nonsense is the best proof of how much he's afraid of that slogan. I mean, geez. As far as blasphemy goes, this doesn't even register on the meter. The only people equating Obama with Jesus are conservatives like Erickson, which they do as a derisive strawman to explain why people like Obama so much. And the worst part for Erickson is the deep down realization that he's not the grassroots agitator he feels like, but has been on the side of the Establishment this whole time...and yet still, there is no Heaven on earth.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
The Doctrine Has No Clothes
Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine? It's not a hard question. As this biting ad shows, it's one McCain's been expected to answer on more than one occasion. Now granted, the Bush Doctrine has always been a steaming pile of self-rationalizing crap.
As Philip D. Zelikow, who helped craft the so-called Bush Doctrine, said "I actually never thought there was a Bush doctrine. Indeed, I believe the assertion that there is such a doctrine lends greater coherence to the administration's policies than they deserve."
And that's exactly right. There never was a Bush Doctrine; not in the traditional sense, anyhow. There was no grand new path the Bushies were setting America on. These people had tunnel-vision goals with short-term marketing strategies and no real thought was put into any of it. It wasn't about preventive war, or the March of Democracy, or fighting terrorists or anything. Those were the sales pitches. And they only lasted as long as they were useful and no longer.
The reality is that, for as much as there really was a "Bush Doctrine," it involved saying whatever needed to be said in order to get as much as they could possibly get. But of course, that didn't really originate with Bush. And call me crazy, but I kind of suspect that both Sarah Palin and John McCain fully believe in that Bush Doctrine.
The Schizophrenic Doctrine
And it becomes obvious that the whole Bush Doctrine was a huge pile of nothing when one looks through the writings of the once proud Bush supporters at RedState. Here's a commenter who has become so disillusioned by Bush's failures that he denies the very existence of a Bush Doctrine: "The question was loaded because Charlie knew that "Bush Doctrine" is a derisive, divisive, derogatory term, intended to be received by much if not most of his audience as such. If he genuinely wanted to ask her some specifics about her positions relative to some aspects of the [multifaceted] Bush Doctrine, he would have done it in a professional manner."
That's right, a term that Whitehouse Press Secretary Dana Perino just gave a multi-part definition to while saying that Bush agrees with her, is "a derisive, divisive, derogatory term" that is so loaded that it's unprofessional to even ask someone if they agree with it. That, my friends, is how thoroughly destroyed the Bush Presidency is. Even the freaks at RedState hate the damn thing.
But it wasn't always that way. Oh no. Here's a post from October 2006 titled Why We Fight by BrianGarst who explains the Bush Doctrine thusly: "The Bush Doctrine is the belief that the establishment of representative governments with personal and economic freedom provides our best chance to achieve this goal."
And that puts BrianGarst in the Freeance Peeance column. Yet RedState writer Leon H. Wolf wrote just today "Anyway, if you had asked me as of yesterday, point blank, to identify the "Bush Doctrine," I would have responded, "We will make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them." I was slightly puzzled to learn that apparently it refers to authorizing pre-emptive strikes against enemies that threaten America - I mean, I know Bush believes in that, but that's not what I identify as the "Bush Doctrine."
And I guess that means Wolfy wasn't reading RedState in July 2004, when JayReding approvingly quotes Bush saying "we must not wait for the threats to come to us before taking action," and then writes "The Bush Doctrine is a necessary doctrine, and it is easy to defend. Again, if one were to ask any American whether we should passively wait for attack or do whatever is necessary to prevent another attack, the answer is obvious."
Of course, that describes preventive war, not pre-emptive war; but let's not quibble. As I said before, there never was a Bush Doctrine. It was rationalizing gibberish and these guys all heard whatever it was they wanted to hear. But that doesn't excuse Governor Palin from not understanding the term. The guys at RedState have known definitions of the word for many years now, and if Palin was savvy enough to understand that the concept was gibberish (which McCain clearly didn't), then she could have said so.
And hey, if she didn't know which definition he meant, she could even have picked any of these definitions and said "If by that you mean (fill in blank)," that would be perfectly acceptable. But no. The question was "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine" and all she could do was ask "In what respect, Charlie?" Scary stuff.
No Correct Answers
And what's really funny is seeing Palin's supporters trying to rationalize this blunder. Is the problem that Palin's a small-time player who wasn't ready for primetime? Of course not. The problem was the media, for asking her an easy question that completely baffled her. They're convinced this was all a trick to "get" Palin. As Leon H. Wolf at RedState says "But in any case, let's be clear: there was no correct answer to this question." Adding "Obama's sycophants in the press are not the least bit interested in learning Sarah Palin's views on anything; they are interested merely in playing gotcha and giving the Obama campaign new talking points..."
Fellow RedStater Brian Faughnan is up in arms because Joe Klein called Palin "a joke" and "an embarrassment" for not being able to answer the question. Somehow, Faughnan's fevered imagination rewrote Klein's quickie post so that it said that the Bush Doctrine involved pre-emptive war. But it didn't. Klein didn't define the Bush Doctrine at all. Yet Faughnan goes ahead and writes a post slamming Klein for having once given a different definition of the doctrine, as well as slamming Obama for giving a different one. But again, all Klein did was mock Palin for not being able to answer the question; not for having answered it incorrectly.
And what's funny is that these people are obsessed with a question that Gibson didn't ask. And that, in fact, Gibson assumed never needed to be asked. He asked if she agreed with the Bush Doctrine. Conservatives, unwilling to admit that Palin is clueless on foreign policy, reimagined the question to be one asking her to define what the term means. And then, whammo! Whatever answer she gave, they'd pretend the correct answer was something else.
Charlie Gibson's Lunch
Yet...Gibson didn't ask her to define the term. Gibson asked her if she agreed with it. And, furious Palin-loving spin aside, she didn't seem to have a clue what Gibson was even talking about. It wasn't just that she couldn't define it. It was that she didn't even grasp where to begin on answering the question. Gibson might as well have asked "Do you enjoy farfinuge with your sprotzham?" and she'd have had about the same answer.
And I strongly believe that we're going to see a lot more of this from Palin. She was a moderately sized fish in a very small and isolated pond, and never really got in-depth with any of these national issues. My impression of Palin is that she's a moderately intelligent schemer who was able to fake her way into the Governor's Mansion, but really couldn't hold her own against somebody who actually knows what they're doing.
And it's sad to see that even the hand-picked Charlie Gibson was already too much of a match for her. Without hardly trying, he was able to embarrass her so much that her admirers now consider him to be an Obama thug intent on trapping and disgracing her; which, if true, would make McCain's team entirely incompetent for allowing him to interview her. Perhaps I'm just too much of the optimist, but I suspect this is the beginning of a long trend for Palin. She can toss out the quickie talking point and sure can read other people's words from a teleprompter, but the more she tries to fool the media, the more delight they'll take in exposing her. I can't wait!
As Philip D. Zelikow, who helped craft the so-called Bush Doctrine, said "I actually never thought there was a Bush doctrine. Indeed, I believe the assertion that there is such a doctrine lends greater coherence to the administration's policies than they deserve."
And that's exactly right. There never was a Bush Doctrine; not in the traditional sense, anyhow. There was no grand new path the Bushies were setting America on. These people had tunnel-vision goals with short-term marketing strategies and no real thought was put into any of it. It wasn't about preventive war, or the March of Democracy, or fighting terrorists or anything. Those were the sales pitches. And they only lasted as long as they were useful and no longer.
The reality is that, for as much as there really was a "Bush Doctrine," it involved saying whatever needed to be said in order to get as much as they could possibly get. But of course, that didn't really originate with Bush. And call me crazy, but I kind of suspect that both Sarah Palin and John McCain fully believe in that Bush Doctrine.
The Schizophrenic Doctrine
And it becomes obvious that the whole Bush Doctrine was a huge pile of nothing when one looks through the writings of the once proud Bush supporters at RedState. Here's a commenter who has become so disillusioned by Bush's failures that he denies the very existence of a Bush Doctrine: "The question was loaded because Charlie knew that "Bush Doctrine" is a derisive, divisive, derogatory term, intended to be received by much if not most of his audience as such. If he genuinely wanted to ask her some specifics about her positions relative to some aspects of the [multifaceted] Bush Doctrine, he would have done it in a professional manner."
That's right, a term that Whitehouse Press Secretary Dana Perino just gave a multi-part definition to while saying that Bush agrees with her, is "a derisive, divisive, derogatory term" that is so loaded that it's unprofessional to even ask someone if they agree with it. That, my friends, is how thoroughly destroyed the Bush Presidency is. Even the freaks at RedState hate the damn thing.
But it wasn't always that way. Oh no. Here's a post from October 2006 titled Why We Fight by BrianGarst who explains the Bush Doctrine thusly: "The Bush Doctrine is the belief that the establishment of representative governments with personal and economic freedom provides our best chance to achieve this goal."
And that puts BrianGarst in the Freeance Peeance column. Yet RedState writer Leon H. Wolf wrote just today "Anyway, if you had asked me as of yesterday, point blank, to identify the "Bush Doctrine," I would have responded, "We will make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them." I was slightly puzzled to learn that apparently it refers to authorizing pre-emptive strikes against enemies that threaten America - I mean, I know Bush believes in that, but that's not what I identify as the "Bush Doctrine."
And I guess that means Wolfy wasn't reading RedState in July 2004, when JayReding approvingly quotes Bush saying "we must not wait for the threats to come to us before taking action," and then writes "The Bush Doctrine is a necessary doctrine, and it is easy to defend. Again, if one were to ask any American whether we should passively wait for attack or do whatever is necessary to prevent another attack, the answer is obvious."
Of course, that describes preventive war, not pre-emptive war; but let's not quibble. As I said before, there never was a Bush Doctrine. It was rationalizing gibberish and these guys all heard whatever it was they wanted to hear. But that doesn't excuse Governor Palin from not understanding the term. The guys at RedState have known definitions of the word for many years now, and if Palin was savvy enough to understand that the concept was gibberish (which McCain clearly didn't), then she could have said so.
And hey, if she didn't know which definition he meant, she could even have picked any of these definitions and said "If by that you mean (fill in blank)," that would be perfectly acceptable. But no. The question was "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine" and all she could do was ask "In what respect, Charlie?" Scary stuff.
No Correct Answers
And what's really funny is seeing Palin's supporters trying to rationalize this blunder. Is the problem that Palin's a small-time player who wasn't ready for primetime? Of course not. The problem was the media, for asking her an easy question that completely baffled her. They're convinced this was all a trick to "get" Palin. As Leon H. Wolf at RedState says "But in any case, let's be clear: there was no correct answer to this question." Adding "Obama's sycophants in the press are not the least bit interested in learning Sarah Palin's views on anything; they are interested merely in playing gotcha and giving the Obama campaign new talking points..."
Fellow RedStater Brian Faughnan is up in arms because Joe Klein called Palin "a joke" and "an embarrassment" for not being able to answer the question. Somehow, Faughnan's fevered imagination rewrote Klein's quickie post so that it said that the Bush Doctrine involved pre-emptive war. But it didn't. Klein didn't define the Bush Doctrine at all. Yet Faughnan goes ahead and writes a post slamming Klein for having once given a different definition of the doctrine, as well as slamming Obama for giving a different one. But again, all Klein did was mock Palin for not being able to answer the question; not for having answered it incorrectly.
And what's funny is that these people are obsessed with a question that Gibson didn't ask. And that, in fact, Gibson assumed never needed to be asked. He asked if she agreed with the Bush Doctrine. Conservatives, unwilling to admit that Palin is clueless on foreign policy, reimagined the question to be one asking her to define what the term means. And then, whammo! Whatever answer she gave, they'd pretend the correct answer was something else.
Charlie Gibson's Lunch
Yet...Gibson didn't ask her to define the term. Gibson asked her if she agreed with it. And, furious Palin-loving spin aside, she didn't seem to have a clue what Gibson was even talking about. It wasn't just that she couldn't define it. It was that she didn't even grasp where to begin on answering the question. Gibson might as well have asked "Do you enjoy farfinuge with your sprotzham?" and she'd have had about the same answer.
And I strongly believe that we're going to see a lot more of this from Palin. She was a moderately sized fish in a very small and isolated pond, and never really got in-depth with any of these national issues. My impression of Palin is that she's a moderately intelligent schemer who was able to fake her way into the Governor's Mansion, but really couldn't hold her own against somebody who actually knows what they're doing.
And it's sad to see that even the hand-picked Charlie Gibson was already too much of a match for her. Without hardly trying, he was able to embarrass her so much that her admirers now consider him to be an Obama thug intent on trapping and disgracing her; which, if true, would make McCain's team entirely incompetent for allowing him to interview her. Perhaps I'm just too much of the optimist, but I suspect this is the beginning of a long trend for Palin. She can toss out the quickie talking point and sure can read other people's words from a teleprompter, but the more she tries to fool the media, the more delight they'll take in exposing her. I can't wait!
Thursday, September 11, 2008
I Just Blinked
The Soviet Union of Eurasia just took over the world. Oops!
I guess I should have invaded them sooner...and not have blinked. And to think, I had all these extra troops just lying around with nothing to do. And this wouldn't have cost me any of the huge mounds of money I have lying around, completely unneeded. Resources as limitless as the imagination; that's what makes America so great.
I guess I should have invaded them sooner...and not have blinked. And to think, I had all these extra troops just lying around with nothing to do. And this wouldn't have cost me any of the huge mounds of money I have lying around, completely unneeded. Resources as limitless as the imagination; that's what makes America so great.
Monkey Hear, Monkey Say
T.A. Frank has a post at Carpetbagger's new home asking what we should do about the potential for politicians using hidden earpieces to sound more intelligent than they really are, and I was so pleased with my suggestions that I decided to pass them on here.
My recommendation is that before any debate, interview, or rally, someone loudly ask in an authoritative voice "Please raise your hand if you're using an earpiece" and see who raises their hand. (Can you honestly say Bush wouldn't have fallen for that?)
Or what if we used ventriloquists to stand beside the politicos and mimic the voice of the pol's smartest handler, giving them a piece of false information and seeing if they repeat it? Or perhaps if they quickly said "Touch your toes" and see if they do.
To check for inner-ear pieces, we could quickly jab pencils in their ears and whoever doesn't say "ouch" is guilty. This would also be a good way of testing the Secret Service's reaction time.
Pacino for President
But seriously, none of this is necessary. Republican presidents do not speak for themselves, at least not since Nixon demonstrated the need for plausible deniability. Modern Republican politicians are little more than empty suits who say what they're told to say and are only given enough information to make the decision their handlers want them to make. Even Mr. Straight-Talking Maverick has become little more than his campaign's chief spokesman, and that role has now been outsourced to his more charismatic running mate.
Calling them flipfloppers would suggest that they give a damn what they're saying. They're actors playing a role, and nothing more. Sure, Robert DeNiro adds spice to the roles he plays, but nobody holds him accountable for the things his characters say. McCain and Palin are no different. It doesn't matter whether they're getting the information from an earpiece or if they just have a good memory; they're not speaking for themselves. And if, god forbid, they won the Whitehouse, their policies would be only slight variations of what a President Romney, Thompson, or Bush would do. It's not a question of what their policies would be, but rather how much deception their handlers have to use to get them to obey.
And honestly, are these earpieces such bad things? At least if they have someone feeding them the information, they won't sound so fricking stupid; like suggesting that Sarah Palin "knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America." Ouch, that's dumb. More earpieces, please!
My recommendation is that before any debate, interview, or rally, someone loudly ask in an authoritative voice "Please raise your hand if you're using an earpiece" and see who raises their hand. (Can you honestly say Bush wouldn't have fallen for that?)
Or what if we used ventriloquists to stand beside the politicos and mimic the voice of the pol's smartest handler, giving them a piece of false information and seeing if they repeat it? Or perhaps if they quickly said "Touch your toes" and see if they do.
To check for inner-ear pieces, we could quickly jab pencils in their ears and whoever doesn't say "ouch" is guilty. This would also be a good way of testing the Secret Service's reaction time.
Pacino for President
But seriously, none of this is necessary. Republican presidents do not speak for themselves, at least not since Nixon demonstrated the need for plausible deniability. Modern Republican politicians are little more than empty suits who say what they're told to say and are only given enough information to make the decision their handlers want them to make. Even Mr. Straight-Talking Maverick has become little more than his campaign's chief spokesman, and that role has now been outsourced to his more charismatic running mate.
Calling them flipfloppers would suggest that they give a damn what they're saying. They're actors playing a role, and nothing more. Sure, Robert DeNiro adds spice to the roles he plays, but nobody holds him accountable for the things his characters say. McCain and Palin are no different. It doesn't matter whether they're getting the information from an earpiece or if they just have a good memory; they're not speaking for themselves. And if, god forbid, they won the Whitehouse, their policies would be only slight variations of what a President Romney, Thompson, or Bush would do. It's not a question of what their policies would be, but rather how much deception their handlers have to use to get them to obey.
And honestly, are these earpieces such bad things? At least if they have someone feeding them the information, they won't sound so fricking stupid; like suggesting that Sarah Palin "knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America." Ouch, that's dumb. More earpieces, please!
No Sex For Oil
Well I just read the story about the Interior Department employees and their sex, drugs, and bribes scandal and what can I say; I guess we need to be opening our coasts to offshore drilling. What other choice do we have? I mean, we just can't compete with this kind of stuff and it's obvious the only reason the oil brokers would be doing this is because they're so desperate to get oil. To suggest otherwise is to believe that it can also rain up.
And shit, I kind of suspect that even our coasts won't be enough. If this was just a drugs & bribes scandal, perhaps yes. But if these oil brokers are going to go through the trouble of having sex with government employees, it's obvious we've got a very serious oil problem. Oh sure, these companies might be putting up a good front, what with their record profits and huge stockholder dividends. But it's obvious they're just going through the motions so as to not panic the rest of us. But chivalry aside, we need to get these people more oil...a lot more oil.
And where else can that be than a complete invasion of Venezeula, starting with Mexico and working our way down? And shit, wouldn't nuking China back to the stone-age be a good start towards freeing up precious oil reserves? Of course it would. As would the destruction of Mecca. And hey, I'm as peaceful a dude as anyone, but facts are facts. These oil companies are in desperate need for oil and money and if we don't get it to them fast, this stuff is just going to get worse.
And who knows where this will end up. I foresee oil companies setting up houses of prostitution, gun smuggling, possibly even turning to atheism...or worse! Yeah, it could easily get that bad. And so opening up our shores is the least we can do to help sate the appetite of these over zealous oil angels. And really, who is to blame for this problem? Supply & Demand is an immutable force of nature. Is this really the fault of the oil brokers, who wanted nothing more than to help America thrive against our aggressive foreign enemies? Or is the real problem the environmentalist do-gooders who made these evil deeds necessary? And if it's the latter, isn't it about time we string them up by their thumbs until they repent? I say, it is.
P.S. Aren't y'all glad that I'm a liberal and don't work for the Darkside? I could really make a killing by pumping out this kind of counter-intuitive crap all day long. I could single-handedly replace Maggie Gallagher, Jonah Goldberg, and David Brooks; and could even out-loon Peggy Noonan if the money was right. Ahh, if I only had no soul.
And shit, I kind of suspect that even our coasts won't be enough. If this was just a drugs & bribes scandal, perhaps yes. But if these oil brokers are going to go through the trouble of having sex with government employees, it's obvious we've got a very serious oil problem. Oh sure, these companies might be putting up a good front, what with their record profits and huge stockholder dividends. But it's obvious they're just going through the motions so as to not panic the rest of us. But chivalry aside, we need to get these people more oil...a lot more oil.
And where else can that be than a complete invasion of Venezeula, starting with Mexico and working our way down? And shit, wouldn't nuking China back to the stone-age be a good start towards freeing up precious oil reserves? Of course it would. As would the destruction of Mecca. And hey, I'm as peaceful a dude as anyone, but facts are facts. These oil companies are in desperate need for oil and money and if we don't get it to them fast, this stuff is just going to get worse.
And who knows where this will end up. I foresee oil companies setting up houses of prostitution, gun smuggling, possibly even turning to atheism...or worse! Yeah, it could easily get that bad. And so opening up our shores is the least we can do to help sate the appetite of these over zealous oil angels. And really, who is to blame for this problem? Supply & Demand is an immutable force of nature. Is this really the fault of the oil brokers, who wanted nothing more than to help America thrive against our aggressive foreign enemies? Or is the real problem the environmentalist do-gooders who made these evil deeds necessary? And if it's the latter, isn't it about time we string them up by their thumbs until they repent? I say, it is.
P.S. Aren't y'all glad that I'm a liberal and don't work for the Darkside? I could really make a killing by pumping out this kind of counter-intuitive crap all day long. I could single-handedly replace Maggie Gallagher, Jonah Goldberg, and David Brooks; and could even out-loon Peggy Noonan if the money was right. Ahh, if I only had no soul.
Silly Thought of the Night
I'm looking at this registration form my daughter brought home for the MarathonKids program, in which "students and their parents commit to the challenge of running or walking 26.2 miles over six moths" and I'm like, what kind of challenge is that? Walking over six bobcats, now that's a challenge. But moths?? I know these are just second graders, but come on! Even a baby can crush a damn moth!!
And do they get to tape the moths to the bottoms of their shoes, or are they expected to pick up the moths each step and place them ahead? And does each step need to include all six moths, or can they alternate? And what if the moths fall apart? They're pretty fragile things and it seems that stepping on them for a full 26 miles is going to take its toll; especially with these little kids and their tiny steps.
Yet, there's no explanation for any of this. Not that I'm above hurting a few stupid animals for the betterment of our children, but this really does sort of border on senseless cruelty. But whatever, as long as the school thinks she's learning something from all this, who am I to complain? They don't listen to me about their excessive homework policy either, so why should I complain about moth death? Just as long as I'm not expected to teach her anything, I'm good.
Update: A well-informed reader has alerted me to the fact that this was a typo and that I'm an idiot, and for that, I apologize.
And do they get to tape the moths to the bottoms of their shoes, or are they expected to pick up the moths each step and place them ahead? And does each step need to include all six moths, or can they alternate? And what if the moths fall apart? They're pretty fragile things and it seems that stepping on them for a full 26 miles is going to take its toll; especially with these little kids and their tiny steps.
Yet, there's no explanation for any of this. Not that I'm above hurting a few stupid animals for the betterment of our children, but this really does sort of border on senseless cruelty. But whatever, as long as the school thinks she's learning something from all this, who am I to complain? They don't listen to me about their excessive homework policy either, so why should I complain about moth death? Just as long as I'm not expected to teach her anything, I'm good.
Update: A well-informed reader has alerted me to the fact that this was a typo and that I'm an idiot, and for that, I apologize.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
A Media Scorned
It really looks like Republicans have plumb broken their propaganda machine. The well-oiled machine they used in 2000 was already smoking and sputtering by the time they cranked it into overdrive in 2004, and now their efforts to destroy Obama have left the damn thing in shambles. And while in the past they were completely laying waste to their credibility with non-conservative voters, this time, they really screwed up: They pissed off the media. And for a media star like McCain, that's really all he's got.
Because despite everything he said, the media always believed he was their guy. Everyone else was being conned and he was just telling them what they wanted to hear. But the media...the media knew that he was one of them. So manly. So real. And so it must have come as a real bitchslap when McCain picked Palin. Because not only did she not appeal to their sensibilities, but they had been left in the dark about her selection. And that could only mean one thing: They were the ones McCain had been fooling, not the conservative base.
And so we see yet another defection away from McCain, with ex-Koolaid Drinker Mark Halperin destroying McCain on CNN. And this just wasn't supposed to happen. The media was supposed to be in the McCain bag like they've never been in a bag before. The conservatives were supposed to be reluctant McCain supporters, but the media was supposed to be there for him. Yet McCain keeps losing the pundits and, lookie this, a Newsweek article detailing how Palin became so obsessed attacking her sister's ex-husband that the divorce court judge had to warn her to stop and even threatened to hurt her sister's custody rights if Palin didn't stop.
And this was all terribly avoidable. For as much as Palin "energized" the base, who gives a flip? What, were they really going to stay home? They weren't voting for McCain, they were voting against Obama. All Palin did was give them an excuse to act energized, but they were going to hate Obama no matter who McCain picked. They're not excited because they imagine Palin's going to have some huge impact on McCain's presidency (and yes, I shuttered when I wrote that). They're excited because it serves them a propaganda victory to have McCain throw them some meat they can believe in. That's what all this was about.
And so McCain pleased the conservative base and ended up destroying his own base. And while the conservatives would have voted against Obama even if McCain had picked Osama as his running mate, the media has had its heart broken and ain't coming back. After all, they're not really Republicans, no matter what most liberals believe. These people are all longtime Democrats who have been trained to not like Democratic politicians. Well, it looks like they can hate Republican politicians too. And while they might have the same sort of cynical "purer-than-thou" dislike of Obama that they have with all other Democrats, these people are pissed that McCain roped them along. This should be fun.
P.S. Isn't it about time for the Blogger spellchecker to acknowledge that "Obama" is a real word? I mean, really.
Because despite everything he said, the media always believed he was their guy. Everyone else was being conned and he was just telling them what they wanted to hear. But the media...the media knew that he was one of them. So manly. So real. And so it must have come as a real bitchslap when McCain picked Palin. Because not only did she not appeal to their sensibilities, but they had been left in the dark about her selection. And that could only mean one thing: They were the ones McCain had been fooling, not the conservative base.
And so we see yet another defection away from McCain, with ex-Koolaid Drinker Mark Halperin destroying McCain on CNN. And this just wasn't supposed to happen. The media was supposed to be in the McCain bag like they've never been in a bag before. The conservatives were supposed to be reluctant McCain supporters, but the media was supposed to be there for him. Yet McCain keeps losing the pundits and, lookie this, a Newsweek article detailing how Palin became so obsessed attacking her sister's ex-husband that the divorce court judge had to warn her to stop and even threatened to hurt her sister's custody rights if Palin didn't stop.
And this was all terribly avoidable. For as much as Palin "energized" the base, who gives a flip? What, were they really going to stay home? They weren't voting for McCain, they were voting against Obama. All Palin did was give them an excuse to act energized, but they were going to hate Obama no matter who McCain picked. They're not excited because they imagine Palin's going to have some huge impact on McCain's presidency (and yes, I shuttered when I wrote that). They're excited because it serves them a propaganda victory to have McCain throw them some meat they can believe in. That's what all this was about.
And so McCain pleased the conservative base and ended up destroying his own base. And while the conservatives would have voted against Obama even if McCain had picked Osama as his running mate, the media has had its heart broken and ain't coming back. After all, they're not really Republicans, no matter what most liberals believe. These people are all longtime Democrats who have been trained to not like Democratic politicians. Well, it looks like they can hate Republican politicians too. And while they might have the same sort of cynical "purer-than-thou" dislike of Obama that they have with all other Democrats, these people are pissed that McCain roped them along. This should be fun.
P.S. Isn't it about time for the Blogger spellchecker to acknowledge that "Obama" is a real word? I mean, really.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Super Palin
Carpetbagger writes about how the McCain people are hiding Shadow President Palin away from the media and isn't letting her do interviews. And the idea is that she's still too unprepared to meet the press and that they've got to get her up to speed. And while that might make CB's liberal heart leap with joy, the truth is much more thrilling.
As I mentioned at Carpetbagger's post, the real reason Palin can't give interviews is because she's currently waterboarding Bin Laden in hopes of getting him to tell her where she can find his boss, the Prophet Mohammad. She found OBL in the bottom of a Pakistani spiderhole and used her ability to memorize other people's speeches to lure him out, so she could blast off both of his kneecaps with a moose rifle. And after she bandaged his wounds to prevent him from dying, he called her an angel and remarked that he now knows why his evil plans would never have worked: Because America had such resourceful women as Sarah Palin.
And did I mention that she's currently got both Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad caught in a love triangle fighting for her affection? It's true. They've already vowed to renounce their evil ways and join the Axis of Palin. Yes, she's that good.
As I mentioned at Carpetbagger's post, the real reason Palin can't give interviews is because she's currently waterboarding Bin Laden in hopes of getting him to tell her where she can find his boss, the Prophet Mohammad. She found OBL in the bottom of a Pakistani spiderhole and used her ability to memorize other people's speeches to lure him out, so she could blast off both of his kneecaps with a moose rifle. And after she bandaged his wounds to prevent him from dying, he called her an angel and remarked that he now knows why his evil plans would never have worked: Because America had such resourceful women as Sarah Palin.
And did I mention that she's currently got both Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad caught in a love triangle fighting for her affection? It's true. They've already vowed to renounce their evil ways and join the Axis of Palin. Yes, she's that good.
Friday, September 05, 2008
McCain's Meaty Biography
Redstate: Too funny. These guys really do want President Palin, yet their best (and only) defense of her is the fact that she's not running for that position. There just seems to be this unstated assumption that McCain will live long enough to tutor her properly, though at least one commenter there stated their desire that McCain resigns early so he can hand the reins over to her, allowing Palin to have a full 10 year administration.
And so for as much as they were revved up by Palin's speech, it's obvious from reading RedState that even they were struggling to find some way of salvaging McCain's speech. To RedState's head-honcho Erick Erickson, McCain "had to" go for a lifeless "nuts and bolts" speech because he couldn't compete with Obama's acceptance speech, which was both "angry rhetoric" and "flowery prose and poetry." Perhaps Erickson is referring to the famous Anger Flower, which lulls insects to their doom with beautiful rants against nature.
I suspect that if they had their way, McCain's speech last night would have gotten the Geico treatment, with Palin standing next to McCain to spice up his speech with a special conservative-only translation. And isn't it sad that McCain's such a bore that they'd have to use the regular person in order to make the celebrity's story sound more interesting?
The Meat of the Speech
And it's obvious that these people are entirely clueless as to what they're even supposed to be doing right now. Much of the reality-based criticism of McCain's speech last night was that he was too light on substance and never actually explained what he was going to do for people and exactly how his policies would differ from Bush's. As Carpetbagger said, "Once the speech was over, it occurred to me that I still don't know what McCain wants to do as president, or even why he's running for president. Apparently, it has something to do with McCain's sense that he's earned it, he's entitled to it, and it's his turn, gosh darn it."
And what's funny is that, to the dopes at RedState, that was the good part of the speech. Here's RedState's Hunter Baker on the upside of the speech: "The good news is that there was meat. McCain got through the faux SOTU and began talking about what really matters -- who he is, what his life has been like, why he is ready to lead. When he talked about that, the tingle started to develop. You could feel it."
That's right. To conservatives, McCain's bio was the "meat" of the speech, which is what really matters. And these people dare accuse us of being in a personality cult. Hunter doesn't care what McCain is planning to do and was annoyed with all the feelgood pandering to people who are suffering. He only cares about who McCain is, and because McCain has a longer resume than Obama's, he imagines this somehow serves as a slamdunk. Sure, people are losing their jobs and homes, but dammit, McCain's a fricking hero, and that makes everything better.
And that's fine by me. These people are losing touch with reality more each day and it shows. Americans are worried about their own fate, yet the biggest concern for Republicans is that people know what a hero their candidate is. Sure, McCain is on the wrong side of every issue, both politically and policy-wise, but...P.O.W. That's what this election is about for these people. It's all about tearing down Obama and building up McCain.
From a good man comes good deeds. Sure, even they now agree that they screwed up with the whole Bush thing (though they never say so explicitly), but Bush wasn't a POW. McCain is. And that makes all the difference...even if they hated McCain until not too long ago and certainly preferred the success-challenged Bush over POW McCain in 2000. But hey, pragmatism: It works.
And so for as much as they were revved up by Palin's speech, it's obvious from reading RedState that even they were struggling to find some way of salvaging McCain's speech. To RedState's head-honcho Erick Erickson, McCain "had to" go for a lifeless "nuts and bolts" speech because he couldn't compete with Obama's acceptance speech, which was both "angry rhetoric" and "flowery prose and poetry." Perhaps Erickson is referring to the famous Anger Flower, which lulls insects to their doom with beautiful rants against nature.
I suspect that if they had their way, McCain's speech last night would have gotten the Geico treatment, with Palin standing next to McCain to spice up his speech with a special conservative-only translation. And isn't it sad that McCain's such a bore that they'd have to use the regular person in order to make the celebrity's story sound more interesting?
The Meat of the Speech
And it's obvious that these people are entirely clueless as to what they're even supposed to be doing right now. Much of the reality-based criticism of McCain's speech last night was that he was too light on substance and never actually explained what he was going to do for people and exactly how his policies would differ from Bush's. As Carpetbagger said, "Once the speech was over, it occurred to me that I still don't know what McCain wants to do as president, or even why he's running for president. Apparently, it has something to do with McCain's sense that he's earned it, he's entitled to it, and it's his turn, gosh darn it."
And what's funny is that, to the dopes at RedState, that was the good part of the speech. Here's RedState's Hunter Baker on the upside of the speech: "The good news is that there was meat. McCain got through the faux SOTU and began talking about what really matters -- who he is, what his life has been like, why he is ready to lead. When he talked about that, the tingle started to develop. You could feel it."
That's right. To conservatives, McCain's bio was the "meat" of the speech, which is what really matters. And these people dare accuse us of being in a personality cult. Hunter doesn't care what McCain is planning to do and was annoyed with all the feelgood pandering to people who are suffering. He only cares about who McCain is, and because McCain has a longer resume than Obama's, he imagines this somehow serves as a slamdunk. Sure, people are losing their jobs and homes, but dammit, McCain's a fricking hero, and that makes everything better.
And that's fine by me. These people are losing touch with reality more each day and it shows. Americans are worried about their own fate, yet the biggest concern for Republicans is that people know what a hero their candidate is. Sure, McCain is on the wrong side of every issue, both politically and policy-wise, but...P.O.W. That's what this election is about for these people. It's all about tearing down Obama and building up McCain.
From a good man comes good deeds. Sure, even they now agree that they screwed up with the whole Bush thing (though they never say so explicitly), but Bush wasn't a POW. McCain is. And that makes all the difference...even if they hated McCain until not too long ago and certainly preferred the success-challenged Bush over POW McCain in 2000. But hey, pragmatism: It works.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
