Here’s the thing — if we make Earl Pomeroy’s [D-ND -- ed.] life extremely painful for the next week, Republicans are going to think twice about jumping ship and so will a lot of the Blue Dog Democrats.
Hugo Chavez's poodle, Barry Obama, coldly employs Chicago-style politics in [*enter outrage du jour here* HONDURAS] as he cowardly appeases America's enemies and stabs our friends in the back. Yet another foreign policy disaster for the One, like when he bowed to the Emperor of Saudi Arabia, gave the Queen of England porno DVDs, and grabbed Santa's crotch on live teevee. Wonder what his TELEPROMPTER thinks! LOL! Gateway has more as does Fausta, Allah, and that douche over at Cornell.
Seriously, as an Intellectually Honest Liberal, even I can say it was Very Wrong for Obama to crush the democratically elected government of Honduras with an armed invasion, nuclear strikes, and economic sanctions, and then turn the country over to the harsh tyranny of Hugo Chavez's jackbooted thugs, who had all the leaders of the so-called "coup" shot, and then all the rich people in Honduras stripped of their worldly possessions, doused with honey, and devoured by fire ants.
Because that''s, like, what happened? I haven't been paying close attention to the goings-on in this particular Fruit-hatted Lesser American nation, but skimming the right-wing reaction, it sure sounds like it!
Remember the other day when you were mumbling/texting/Twitterfying to yourself, "Hey, it's today! What stupid thing could Erick Erickson possibly have to say to us?" and you sat there and waited and nobody raised their hand so you thought, "Hmmm, maybe he didn't say anything stupid today."? Not so fast, Brain-o!
By the time you read this, a lot of ink and air time will have been spent on this Politico article suggesting that the Republicans tremble when conservatives like Rush, Hannity, Beck, or even me says something.
Give me just a moment here... OK. Um, really, Erick? Republicans tremble when you say something? I had no idea. But hey, I'm a magnanimous motherfucker and I'm willing to give a fellow blogger the benefit of the doubt, so let's check out that Politico article... shall we?
Congressional leaders talk in private of being boxed in by commentators such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh — figures who are wildly popular with the conservative base but wildly controversial among other parts of the electorate, and who have proven records of making life miserable for senators and House members critical of their views or influence.
OK, I see your Limbaugh and your Beck there... let's double check and... nope, don't see any mention of "ERICK ERICKSON" anywhere in that paragraph. Oh, I know! CTR + F with my Firefox intertwangatron viewmaster device! Huh... there's your Hannity, down there at the bottom... still no mention of "ERICK ERICKSON", though.
This is certainly odd. If I didn't know better, I'd think Erick Erickson was just making up stories about how he was totally at that huge party with all the cool kids and OMG! he was so wasted!!And totally got laid! What? He's laid plenty! Girlfriend, Canada, etc.
But perhaps I judge too harshly. Upon further reading, we see that Erick is a true team player. After all, there's no "I" in RedState, right?
This is all coordinated. Harry Reid does not have the votes. And Obama
is now determined to split the GOP. The best way to do that is to play
to their vanity — accuse the Republicans of being Rush Limbaugh’s boot
lickers. How do they prove otherwise? They vote for the public option
and prove they aren’t tools of tea party activists, talk radio guys,
and RedState bloggers.
RedState bloggers, yes. Perhaps the most feared and respected voices on the... wait a minute. Skippity flippity Hell, let's check that article again! CTR + F, ho! Oh... that's sad. Once again, Firefox has failed to find any mention of "ERICK ERICKSON" or "REDSTATE" in that darned Politico piece. Maybe it's my computer but I can't even find the word "blogger" in that article.
Well, shit... Now I'm right back to my original hypothesis, i.e., Erick Erickson is a self-aggrandizing ass clown trying to ride the coattails of real, actual media personalities in an effort to make himself appear relevant and possibly important. I know, it sounds crazy but...
Sometimes the internets just make me sad. Oh, wait! Rock salt! Yay, relevance! and what have you...
One of the genuine problems the right wing has going forward that the Conservative Movement ought to contemplate, but won't, is that the people spearheading their resurgence are stupid assholes. Erick Son of Erick, for instance, is about as intelligent as a fucking dirt-clod, and that's all he anyhow has to throw.
Thank you lefty bloggers so very much for primarying Joe Lieberman and helping him be bold enough to shaft you.
The reason Joe Lieberman got targeted in a primary is that he's not now and has never ever been a reliable liberal vote on anything that matters to us. In other words, he got targeted because he had, and has, a very clear tendency to support the Other Side whenever it comes to anything important.
But whatever. Debate the wisdom of a certain move by the Left Base, if you will. But don't so it while you're waging a fucking jihad against GOP Moderates, lest ye look look like at best a crowlin ferlie, and at worst a shithead. (That last link is et passim, of course. It also shows a rather spectacular ignorance of NY state politics.)
It is also worth pointing out that one of the key differences between the Left Base and the Right Base is that the Left Base isn't barking loony. On healthcare, it really is true that every other Western Democracy has tons more governmental involvement in doctoring than the US does, and yet none of these countries are run by Totalitarian Despots. Norway and Blade Runner are different. Norway has better healthcare. Even Scotland is no dystopia! The Left Base admits this; the Right Base squeals "socialism" and pees themselves.
As you may know, RedState has started a Great Books style program.
We are rather slowly making our way through a series of books on
conservative thought and ideas. We have started with Jonah Goldberg’s
When Jonah Goldberg's Great Ideas are going too fast for you, shoot yourself.
“Contrary to his relentless assertions in Mein Kampf,
Hitler had no great foundational ideas or ideological system. His
genius lay in the realization that people wanted to rally to ideas and
symbols. . . . Time and again in Mein Kampf, Hitler makes it
clear that he believed his greatest gift to the party wasn’t his ideas
but his ability to speak,” Goldberg writes. I’m reminded of that story
Harry Reid tells about Obama where Obama said he, Obama, had a gift. “A
real gift, Harry,” he said. It was oration.
This is not to make an Obama=Hitler comparison.
Yes it is. That's why you made it.
It is just to note that like most good demagogues, Hitler and Obama
both know the public is more interested in the silver tongue and the
Greco-Roman columns as a backdrop than they are in the substantive
So Hitler = Obama. Reagan knew "this" too, but let's not mention him. Or any other fucking politician ever. Ha ha! You are eloquent and have stagecraft! You know that most people are not conversant with intricate policy issues like tariffs and such! JUST LIKE HITLER!
That, perhaps, more than anything is the take away from Chapter 2 of Liberal Fascism.
Hitler stood for nothing except hatred of the Jews. He was happy to do
or say anything to get elected so long as it meant extermination of the
Jews and a bolstering of the Germany self.
Lebensraum? Crushing Weimar parliamentary democracy? Rearmament? Reoccupation of the Ruhr? Repudiating Versailles? "The Germany self"? Is Erick Erickson really this baby-brained?
What is also worth nothing is that contrary to left-wing myth about
corporatism and the Nazis, derived in part because of the rivalry
between communism and nazism, when the Nazis did put out public policy
positions, they were right out of the progressive left.
The Social Democrats always wanted to put forward the Nuremberg laws, then, but never got around to it in the 1920s? The Social Democrats wanted to deep-six parliamentary democracy in exchange for the Leadership Principle? The Social Democrats were the prime movers in favor of expropriating Jewish businesses and firing Jewish professors? It was the "progressive left" in Germany in the 1920s that let Hitler out of prison after attempting what was clearly armed treason?
Erick Erickson is pig-ignorant. So is Jonah Goldberg, for that matter. But Erickson is even dumber, Lord Preserve Us:
Jonah does a great job showing that Nazism was distinct from
Mussolini’s Fascism and where Mussolini derived much of his platform
from his own thinking, Hitler built on existing ideas and, frankly,
used leftwing ideas more for filler so he wasn’t just campaigning on
the extermination of Jews.
Even accepting the "logic" here, the fact that Hitler never really believed any of that left wing hooey is supposed to be evidence that Hitler was a Man of the Left...? How does that work?
Oh but what am I even saying. Erick Erickson and Jonah Goldberg are very, very stupid people. Gah! Gah! Gah!
In a statement released just before Reid announced his chamber's final
reform bill will include an iteration of the government plan, the
National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) charged Reid was a
"partisan bully" who is out of touch with his own constituents.
"Wah Harry Reid successfully picked on us" = least impressive complaint ever.
This is very interesting. Apparently Newt Gingrich is going to run for president if the citizenry demands it of him. Or, as he puts it, if "there's a requirement as citizens that we run."
I've long been at a loss as to the necessity or even point of Newt Gingrich, and I cannot imagine the nature of the emergency that would cause the nation to cry out as one, "hurrah! THAT'S OUR FAILED UNLIKEABLE HALFWIT DOUCHEBAG! This is his hour, that shithead!"
I don't think I'll ever see this eventuality arise, nor do I especially wish to. But the circumstances involved would be extraordinary, to say the least.
suspect many of the people who will happily describe their movement as
such will not really know of or not particularly care about the
definition 360 and the rest are into. I may be delusional, but
I think the American Revolution still trumps the urban dictionary in
much of the country.
She may be delusional, of course, but surely she has a point about how "tea-bagging" has long been associated with the American Revolution in the popular imagination.
The general consensus in those precincts is that the tea-baggers should attempt to claim the tea-bagger term in exactly the same way as black people get to use bad words that white people can't. Nordlinger:
This is the way I put it in a post
on Monday: “I myself am afraid that ‘teabagger’ is here to stay. And
perhaps conservatives will ‘own’ the insult, as they say? Or maybe they
have owned it already? Alternatively, is ‘teabagger’ to be a
conservative N-word, acceptable — even joyously employed — among
conservatives, but nasty and impermissible from liberals?"
I think this is an excellent idea for them and I recommend it without reservation as something they should campaign and agitate for relentlessly. I can't think of a single thing that could possibly go wrong with right wing activists calmly explaining to the nation that they are Out and Proud Teabaggers in exactly the same sense as black people call themselves niggers.
K-Lo and the gang all need to commence "joyously" calling each other "teabaggers" immediately. Jesus, I am sure, demands it.