_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sunday, August 21, 2011

The New Crazy, Same As The Old Crazy

Fiscal conservatives, I'm one of those. National security conservatives, I'm one of those. Social conservatives, I'm one of those. And the Tea Party, I'm one of those!

That was Crazy Eyes Bachman in South Carolina this past week. 

She used that phrase, or a variation, at each of her campaign stops. 

It’s not a surprising statement given her history and clearly stated positions.

But it’s more than a little bizarre given her desire for the GOP nomination.

It’s a statement that says basically, hey, sure I’m a regressive puritan with an obsessive compulsion to impose my hypocritical evangelically mangled view of morality on your bedroom, marriage, education, thinking, and life –and despite how appealing that is to a certain segment of America, I’m also a card carrying member of the fevered pointy-hat wearing fanatic fringe, a proponent of fiscal policies that crashed our economy and brought disaster on the world, and I embrace the Bush doctrine of Kill ‘em all and let God sort it out because that has worked so well for us over the last decade.

The phrase is supposed to reach out to more than just her little niche of puckered sphincter clenchers. 

Because, see, Bachman may be the bestest red white and blue genuine American patriot since Ron Captain America Reagan invented Democracy, but to actually win the Republican nomination for president she’ll have to appeal to more than just the hardliners and extremists. She’ll have to win over progressives and moderates too – i.e. those conservatives she keeps calling traitors and RINOs and unAmerican.  You know, the majority of the Republican party.

The funny part is that she actually thinks she’ll reach those people with a statement that says, in essence, “I’m a right-wing extremist.”

Michelle Bachman believes that the only real Americans are the ones who think just like her and the rest, the majority of not only the country but her own party, clearly do not count, but she figures she can flim-flam them long enough to get the nomination.

Poor Michelle, if only it was as easy to reprogram regular conservatives as it is to straighten out gay people.

Of course, Bachman isn’t the only one trying to appear something she’s not – and failing at it.

Mittens Romney, in a blatant attempt to appeal to the same extremists Bachman is currently attempting distance herself from, announced this week with a straight face that the Tea Party has been good for Washington.  Frankly I’m surprised he didn’t make that statement from a rowboat in the middle of the Potomac while wearing a pointy George Washington hat and brandishing a misspelled sign proclaiming Obama Tis Of Ye Old Devil.

The Tea Party is good for Washington DC about the same way food poisoning is good for the toilet paper industry.

TPer’s want to claim that they represent the average American and that their non-partisan goal is a smaller fiscally responsible government – and there may actually be some members of the movement who really, truly believe that horse pucky.  But the obvious and overwhelming truth of the matter is that the Tea Party is composed almost exclusively of white Christian conservatives who, even before the formal inception of the movement, were highly partisan conservatives who then and now clamor wild-eyed for God in government.  The Tea Party leaders may say that the movement’s goals are not religiously or politically motivated, but the rock throwers in the street have a different agenda.

There’s some real irony in a group of people who think they’re going to get less government intrusion in their lives by including God in government. I’ve been in countries run by religious extremists, including Christian ones, theocracy isn’t exactly big on personal freedom or letting you keep your money, but I digress.

Last June, Bachman claimed that the Tea Party was made up of sixty percent republicans, twenty percent independents, and twenty percent democrats.   Notably she didn’t bother to back those figures up with any actual validated data.  Probably because she pulled the numbers out of her boney white ass like well lubed love beads. Now, there are apparently democrats in the Tea Party, about nine to twelve percent, depending on which polling data you look at – the same percentage of democrats that coincidently voted for John McCain in the last election.  The Tea Party trots these folks out at every opportunity along with Herman Cain, their one token non-white crazy rich guy.

More telling than polling numbers however are the Tea Party’s candidates. 

Name one Tea Party backed freshman member of Congress who is a democrat.

Right.

If you look really hard on the local election level, you might find the one oddball Democrat endorsed by a local Tea Party chapter. But when you look at the so-called democrat candidate backed by the Tea Party, you find neither a liberal nor a conservative but rather a self serving conniving asshole who’ll say whatever he thinks will get him elected – you know, like Mittens.  Take sometimes Democrat Jack Davis, who ran on the Tea Party ticket in the recent New York special elections.  He ran three times before as a liberal, but this time suddenly he was a conservative (He got about nine percent of the vote and lost so badly that next time he’ll probably run on the Rent-Is-Too-Damned-High ticket just for laughs).

Like Herman Cain’s skin color in a frothing sea of pale mottled whiteness, the percentage of non-right wing extremists backed by the Tea Party is so low as to be utterly inconsequential.  The folks who back Michelle Bachman are far more likely to vote for Cannibal Hitler’s Head in a Pickle Jar than a democrat

Speaking of pickled heads, there’s Rick Perry, yet another Tea Party favorite who used to be a democrat before he and Jesus became drinking buddies.

No religious extremism there, no sir.

I don’t know which brand of booger eating crazy I find more unnerving, Perry’s pray-the-gay-away and give-us-some-rain-today theocracy or Bachman’s religion driven pseudo-science social engineering – together the two of them are like the second coming of Incurious George mixed up with eugenics and the lumpy art of phrenology. 

Actually, come to think of it, eugenics and phrenology might just explain George the Pinheaded, but I digress.

Anyway, so far my favorite part of this carnival house of mirrors is the part where Rick Perry proclaimed he’ll make a dandy Commander in Chief because the troops will respect him for his vast military experience.  I think I might have actually snorted chocolate milk through my nose at that.  Funny how an Air Force shave-tail C-130 cargo pilot with three whole years of peacetime service should automatically command the unconditional respect of the US military, but somebody with three purple hearts, the silver star and the bronze star is a scumbag deserving of nothing but contempt – if he’s a democrat and happens to be, oh, say, John Kerry.  That’s probably why Perry switched parties, so his military service would count for something.  I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by this, given the number of TPer’s who show up here at Stonekettle Station and question my military service by making sneering references to the traitor Bradley Manning (which is a level of ignorance that boggles the mind, given my clearly stated position on that particular subject, but I’ve come to expect little in the way of rationality from these people). Perry claims he’ll get the economy moving again, he knows how to create jobs – just like in Texas where shitty minimum-wage jobs with no benefits in the oil industry are booming.  Funny how Perry never seems to mention that those jobs were created by high gasoline prices and at the expense of every other state in the Union.  What was Perry’s plan for scaling that up to the national level again? Drill for oil in Rhode Island? Fracking outstanding, folks.

Perry is the very epitome of the modern conservative: a religious fundamentalist who talks about liberty, a guy who claims to have created jobs in the technology sector while denying the most basic tenets of modern science, a politician who hates the federal government and yet aspires to its highest office, a man who claims to champion individual rights and freedoms and yet advocates Constitutional amendments that would deny those very rights and freedoms to a certain segment of the population, a lousy student who thinks he’s qualified to reform the education system, a man who claims to love America better than you and me and yet openly advocates seceding from the Union.  This is a man who talks about how conservatives must stick together to win back their America and then he screws over the other members of his party by making his big announcement on the same day as the Ames Straw Poll – a page he apparently took from the Sarah Palin playbook, oh look, it’s the American Juggernaut of Patriotic American Freedom pulling into the parking lot. Will she declare? Yes? No? Or will she just run over the bandstand and crush her rivals? Ooooh, the suspense is killing us! 

It’s a given that Republicans eat their young, but this kind of nonsense is getting a little out hand.

Who’s left?

Pawlenty? At least he had the sense to fold.

Newt Gingrich?  Is he actually still in the race? Or is he too busy screwing around on his third wife because he loves America so much? What’s the line? Put a flag over her face and do it for Old Glory? That’s Newt.  I mean honestly, what’s this guy up to? Stealth may be good for fighter jets but it sure as hell isn’t a way to run a presidential campaign.

There’s Jon Huntsman, seemingly the only rational one in the Republican lineup – and doomed from the start though you have to admire his optimism.

Oops, I almost forgot Ron Paul.  The guy with the magic mojo plan.  Every time I see him on the news, he reminds me of one of those yappy little dogs old ladies carry around in their purse –  the kind with the wiry hair and the little sweaters and that always seems to have some kind of skin disease and that black goopy crud in the corners of their eyes. 

Maybe Christine O’Donnell will run, that would be fun – for about five minutes, right up until the first interview where she’s asked to explain one of her bizarre statements in more detail.  Seriously, if there was ever a person who desperately needed to spend a long sweaty weekend in Cancun getting in some dirty barebacked jungle monkey sack time with a swarthy young guy named Manolo, it’s Christine O’Donnell.

Or Maybe The Donald will throw his toupee into the ring again.  I see he’s back on the birther kick this week and frankly this race could use some humor.

So, where’s that leave us?

Extremists, paranoids, religious nuts, know-nothings, the usual conservative sexual bugaboos, moralizers, hair gel, war mongering, flying monkeys, and the second coming of Ross Perot.

Forty years ago Republicans were serious men in white shirts and somber ties, the guys with the buzz cuts and slide rules, scientists and engineers who got us to the moon and back – while the liberals danced naked in the Age of Aquarius dreaming their hippy dreams and rubbing magic crystals to cure their case of the clap.  

Honest to Cthulhu, folks, what in the hell happened to the GOP?

Conservatives need to stop talking about taking their country back and work on taking back their party.

87 comments:

  1. They wanted their "permanent majority" and the only way to get it was to pander to the fundamentalists, by way of Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority", and by the time they realized what they'd let in, the crazy had pretty much infiltrated the constituency to the point where each successive candidate had to pander /more/ to the crazy than their rivals...

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Once again, Jim, you nail it. It is a perfect summary of the GOP field of candidates.

    ReplyDelete
  4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hmmmmmm... I think that the finalnail inthe coffin for the GOP was McCain... Even the Tea Baggers have disowned him completely. They won't have a womanizing, partying, frat boy, represent them... Well, unless they are born again and speak with God!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jim my son in law recently began working in the states and was shocked by what he heard there, apparently Obama is responsible for everything from the present day economic woes of the states to the fact that the expiration date has been reached on the milk that they just bought last week. He even said that there were gangs of people going around trashing vehicles with Canadian plates because Canada was responsible for the flooding in their towns.

    My hope is that he is working with a bunch of uneducated, booger eating, asshats and it isn't an indication of how bad the education system in the US has become.

    Your blog seems to be a shining example of sanity and reason, I hold onto it like someone grasping a life ring in choppy waters. Please tell me that there are millions of like minded, sane, smart individuals down there so I don't have to become a survivalist to try and protect kith and kin from the invasion of the tea bagging moron clan.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Please tell me that there are millions of like minded, sane, smart individuals down there so I don't have to become a survivalist to try and protect kith and kin from the invasion of the tea bagging moron clan.

    Yes, we're here. I just worry that when the TP-ers read this they'll either think we're talking about somebody else, or think we're crazy. OR both.

    Sigh.

    Jim, as always a breath of sanity in this insane world.

    ReplyDelete
  8. was Nixon the last (choke) responsible to the WHOLE nation (choke) republican president

    I really really want this on Google+, but until the wasponym stupidity is over I cannot justify recommending G+

    wasponym n.
    1. A name evocative of 1940s and 1950s suburban America.
    2. A name chosen by one not of Northern European descent to avoid racial prejudice.
    3. A fictitious name, often software-generated, chosen to avoid suspicion on social networks for the purpose of spamming, phishing, or other illicit activity.
    4. A name acceptable on Google+.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yup, Jim.... There's not one of the Repub. "candidates" or wannabees that's worth a bucket of warm spit. It appears that nobody with reasonable views has a snowball's chance in hell of being heard above the verbal vomitus from the yammering nutjobs. Keep the commentary coming!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. But Jim, the social conservatives have won over the party (all the other real conservatives are blinded to that believing the party is still about conservatism). they are solid and triumphant. And they've been successful in slewing American Politics to the Right ever since Reagan.

    I mean, hell, Obama would be a Republican is this was 1976. Even if it was 1990. And that his governance from what was the center-right is now considered "far left" just shows how far the country has gone.

    "Probably because she pulled the numbers out of her boney white ass like well lubed love beads." Damn it. I forgot it was a presidential election season and I haven't stocked up on mental floss and brain bleach. I better go to Sam's Club and stock up. It's going to be a bumpy ride, isn't it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Republicans, this is what happens when you look into the abyss.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I can only say that if the Republican candidates are as bad as you say, what are you guys worried about ? President Obama with his $Billion dollar war chest should only have to show up to beat these right wing zealots .

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous, you obviously just don't get it.

    I want reasonable, sane, and worthy republicans, I want reasonable, sane, and worthy democrats. I want reasonable, sane, and worthy independents. Our government functions a whole hell of a lot better - and we all benefit - when that happens. Extremists, be they liberal or conservative, are bad for everybody.

    And what Obama's reelection fund has to do with anything is completely beyond me.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Jim Wright,

    " Anonymous, you obviously just don't get it. "

    You are correct, I do not . You guys obviously will not be voting Republican, no matter who they nominate. You will vote to reelect the President . So the crazier, the better, since that hurts their chances.

    " And what Obama's reelection fund has to do with anything is completely beyond me. "

    Money is very important . The President raised more than anyone in history in 2008. That was a big factor for him to win . It has been reported that he will again raise $1 Billion . It's hard to beat that kind of money .

    ReplyDelete
  15. You nailed them perfectly, especially Perry, who especially needs nailing at the moment.

    It's pretty unlikely that one of the real nutcases, if nominated, could beat Obama. It's just that it's not unlikely enough to allow us to feel complacent.

    President Romney or Huntsman would just mean an administration that would make decisions I disagree with. That's life. President Perry or Bachmann would mean an administration that considered me a second-class citizen by at least two criteria, and a delusional who believes God-knows-what about Armageddon and the End Times getting hold of 10,000 nuclear weapons. That's not something I can face with equanimity.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The GOP monkeys have indeed taken over the zoo, and those few responsible keepers whose job it is to clean up the mess after them have realized that it's easier to agree with them. That's because if they don't, the monkeys will throw their poop all over them.

    Don't blame me, though, for Perry. And don't blame Texas A&M for his bad grades. After all, as my favorite Texas blogger Juanita Jean says, down here we have this cute little remedial college; Aggie jokes inevitably follow such a comment.

    Do blame Perry, however, for taking the federal stimulus money earmarked to hire teachers, firefighters, and cops-- billions of it-- and sticking it in the Rainy Day fund in order to (cough, cough) "balance the budget." That's part of why I'm still a substitute teacher. Thousands of teachers with more classroom time than I have been laid off this year.

    Proud of Texas; ashamed of Rick Perry. (And that other guy before him.)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous, if I were voting for "the crazier the better" it would be a toss up between Bachmann and Parry. In 2008 it had nothing to do with money... but everyone seems to forget why they DIDN'T vote for McCain...

    And in 2000 having an impotent Supreme Court and an ineffective state voting commission played a bigger part.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Anonymous: You guys obviously will not be voting Republican, no matter who they nominate.

    I don't speak for "you guys," but I personally vote for who I think will be the best guy for the job. In all honesty, if Jon Huntsman was the GOP candidate, and depending on who his VP was, I could certainly be swayed to vote for the republican. However, if the GOP candidate is Bachman or Perry or Newt, you can damned well bet that I'll vote for Cannibal Hitler's Head in a Pickle Jar before I vote republican. I'm perfectly happy to vote for Obama again if that's the choice the GOP gives me.

    For the record, I'm a registered Independent and if you want my vote you're going to have to earn it.

    You're making assumptions about me that you have no business making, Anonymous.

    Again, I don't speak for others commenting here, they can speak for themselves.

    As to the money issue, if you're pissed that Obama has got a bigger warchest, then get out and beat the bushes for your candidate. It can't be too hard, all those wealthy industrialists who got an extension on their Bush era tax cuts ought to have some spare cash laying around. Besides, according to conservative doctrine there shouldn't be any rich liberal campaign donors, right? Since they're all lazy welfare dependent socialists who hate capitalism.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Kamikazi ,

    You guys sure carry a lot of anger on this board towards Perry and Bachman. But lets say your guy President Obama wins. Is it just to keep those crazies from screwing you over? Or what do you want President Obama to accomplish in his second term ?

    I'd like to know what to expect. Will it be better ?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Jim Wright,

    " You're making assumptions about me that you have no business making, Anonymous. "

    My apologies. I am Anonymous because you guys are pretty riled up and perhaps it was a mistake for me to intrude. I only wished to see what you guys were for . I get a good sense of what you are not for . I see you like Huntsman. I had not considered him since his numbers in the polls were low.

    Again sorry for interrupting. I will go away now .

    ReplyDelete
  21. I am not a huge fan of Anonymous posters on my blog and I don't care for them over on others. No guts, I say.

    marykmusic---spot on! Juanita Jean is one of my favorites too.

    Jim--'Mittens' Romney! You're killing me!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anyone too lazy to make up a name is not worth reading.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous, I carry no hatred towards Bachmann or Parry... I just wonder at the double standards that they and their contemporaries exercise in their lives and the ignorance they display in the conduct of their roles. And I have the same contempt for liberals that feel that the masses depend on their elitist approach to government.

    It's not what I want President Obama to accomplish but what I want the Congress to accomplish... They are allowing a minority faction of their party and the Congress to dictate what they want without taking responsibility for how we got here... They would have me believe, if I were a mindless drone, that President Obama racked up the deficit, that he deployed troops to Iraq and Afghanistan even going so far as to call Libya a "war"... those pilot's that are involved are either back intheir beds in Italy that night or sitting in a room on an 8 hour shift back in the states...

    It cracks me up everytime I get an email or posting from one of my conservative acquaintance blaming the President for something a low level government employee does, worrying about his birth certificate, etc. The links they provide me are laced with racist comments. And a few have nothing about UFO's... (Although I'm sure Jim prefers the one's that do).

    But, tell me Anonymous, are you impressed with the ludicrous statements of Bachmann and/or Parry? Like $2 gas or what we do to Geitner if he prints money down here in Texass? In Iowa theywould probably make him eat deep fried butter...

    ReplyDelete
  24. I agree, Jim, about Huntsman. But he may as well change parties now. He's making entirely too much sense to be a contemporary Republican. Too educated, too, and multi-lingual; these things alone keep him from passing the Purity Test. And then there's that (horrors!) Mormon thing. Even Anonymous is uncomfortable with him, but claims it's because of low poll numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  25. @ marykmusic - what most people don't realize is that by hijacking federal funds that pass through the states hands are tax increases by proxy on the part of Parry... But he keeps his hands clean because he forces local municipalities to increase property taxes to cover the redirected funds. Of course it doesn't help that Canutillo School District publicized laying off 23 teachers before the tax increase vote and then 2 weeks after saving their jobs the district announced they were pulling out 3 or 4 year old field turf to install BLUE field turf... so much for ejukashun. Or that the El Paso ISD Superintendent was busted by the FBI for setting up a half mil contract with a "woman he had a relationship with". And the School Board in place at the time didn't question the contract and the board in place after the investigation was started RENEWED his contract... Their answer was that he was "innocent until proven guilty" which I can agree with but renew his contract? And now WE owe him money even though he was violating the contract he had with us?

    But, the truth is, weneed less educators because all we are doing is teaching the test...

    ReplyDelete
  26. Kamikaze, I'm aware of the El Paso riff. But Perry (or Parry, for Colbert fans) dumped the responsibility on how many and which teachers to lay off directly in the laps of the districts (ISD stands for Independent School District, which is used across Texas.) He then, Pilate-like, washed his hands of the affair.

    Meanwhile, charter schools are potentially able to opt out of the state-mandated standardized tests. That will really improve education (not!) It's easy to start one here. Lots of scammers are doing it.

    Thanks, Rick Perry.

    ReplyDelete
  27. maryk- Hahaha... Yeah I exercise the Cobert option on Parry! Parry brought in TON's of jobs to Texas... most of them minimum wage with minimum benefits. Or with a company that brought all their new hires through Texas to inprocess (did I mention that Texas is a NO INCOME TAX state?) and then moved their "headquarters" to Dubai to evade taxes... The name of that company? Wait for itttttttttt... HALIBURTON!

    I have a lot of friends who are educators and I really feel for them!

    JIM - you guy you... I just got the GREATEST WORD VERIFICATION ever! fookerr!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hahaha... you fookerr!

    If I would have tried to send this off my Atrix it probably would've spell corrected it!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Jim,

    Just stumbled across your blog by accident and wanted to say I'm loving what I'm reading. You nailed it right on the head with your summary of all of the GOP candidates, and I have to applaud you for your posting regarding Rick Perry's "prayers". I'll be looking forward to hearing more actual rational thoughts from someone who doesn't bullshit around and just speaks the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Nice speel Jim. But but i thought the republicans were running Obama for preznit this time around!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Kamikazi,

    " I carry no hatred towards Bachmann or Parry.. "

    As an outsider here I can tell you how you appear to me . I find your statement incredible .

    Jerry Critter,

    " Anyone too lazy to make up a name is not worth reading. "

    I don't generally make up any names. Having gotten thrown off a few boards, I decided to be on good behavior here . Anyone not sharing your viewpoint would likely get hammered .

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous

    It isn't hatred, it is admiration at their ability to suspend reality.

    I'm a registered Democrat because we do not have open primaries and the primaries are really where our local politicians are chosen.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous, at first I thought you were saying I was incredible and I was going to thank you but... you find my statement (that I carry no hatred) incredible? Because of the truths that I have pointed out or is it, well, because I AM incredible? I made no hatred statements, I made no comments about "what I would do"... Heck the worst thing I have done is to call a bunch of irresponsible fanatics "teabaggers"... for which I must apologize because teabagging is something that should only be shared between two individuals who care for each other...

    For the record, Anonymous, it's called satire...

    ReplyDelete
  34. @Anonymous:

    You may have wandered into the wrong room. There are certainly posters in this thread who have made it clear in comments elsewhere and in their own blogs that they have reservations about Obama or have expressed a sincere wish for a competent loyal opposition.

    Let me tell you where I'm coming from: unlike the majority of people here, I'm an out-and-out socialist who favors a mixed economy with government management of utilities (e.g. national defense and healthcare), with a regulated private sector serving the rest of the economy. In most European countries I'd be a Democratic Socialist, but the DS party here is effectively nonexistent. So, you're correct, I am unlikely to vote for a Republican (though I have voted for Republicans in local elections), since they're miles away from my positions on most issues. Where you are incorrect is that my votes for Democrats are usually reluctant ones, because although many Democrats are closer to my views than practically all Republicans, most are fairly rightward of my views. I have been happier casting futile votes for Greens than I have for most Democrats, and on rare occasions I've voted for a Libertarian based on his social politics although I am diametrically opposed to Libertarians on economic and regulatory issues.

    But go back to what I said about supporting a mixed economy: I'm not a communist, and I do believe private enterprise and a regulated market can serve the public interest in many (perhaps even most) instances. And the follow-up to that becomes, "Which instances?" And here is where I need informed, sane and educated debate from another side, even if I might never vote for that side: I need educated resistance to finesse and polish my own ideas, and it may well be that someone can convince me that I'm wrong about a governmental role or regulation, that x is an economic area in which the public weal is served by a relatively free market or that my ideas for regulation are bad ones.

    Perry and Bachmann don't offer that kind of opposition--they're misinformed demagogues. Romney probably could, if he wasn't pandering to the GOP's far right to the point that he's largely running against his own record these days. I don't know much about Huntsman, though his recent pro-science statements are very encouraging: he might be a guy I wouldn't vote for who would still give me good ideas or make my own ideas better, or who might be capable of forging a compromise that adopts the best ideas from left and right to promote the role of government (promoting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, natch--I likes me some Jeffersonian rhetoric).

    Finally, let me add: you initially asked what people were afraid of. You know, I'm afraid that there could be some strange twist of events that leads to Michele Bachmann being sworn in as President Of The United States. Nobody voted Gerald Ford into the Oval Office; few people may have been more surprised at the swearing-ins of John Tyler and Chester Arthur than Tyler and Arthur themselves. Michele Bachmann's personality and politics frighten me, and Rick Perry's nauseate me; so, yes, I'd like them as far from the GOP's ticket as possible and I don't take it for granted that either one of them is "unelectable" (as if electability was actually a prerequisite for becoming President) or couldn't find themselves being sworn in via some wholly unexpected chain of events. This is why John McCain's decision to run with Sarah Palin was probably the single most irresponsible act of his political career: he owed it to the American people to run with somebody who would be a good President in a tight spot, not just someone he thought would pick up "values voters" or whatever.

    There's my two cents, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Nicely done, Jim. I especially like your comment about Tea Party support for freshmen reps. Very telling.

    Perry's comments about veterans made me laugh. After what his ilk said about Kerry and Cleland, I see what they REALLY think about veterans who might have a different opinion on things...

    ReplyDelete
  36. I had posted elsewhere that if not for Vietnam Parry would not have recieved a FREE education nor would he have made the cutoff for an active duty commission with a 2.2 GPA...

    ReplyDelete
  37. " I carry no hatred towards Bachmann or Parry.. "

    As an outsider here I can tell you how you appear to me. I find your statement incredible.


    Well, I kind of do hate Bachmann and Perry. Why? Because they are xenophobic, intolerant racists who would turn this country into a third-world theocracy under sharia law, except that because it would be the Christian Bible, not the infidel Koran, that would be OK.

    They would deny basic civil rights to sections of the American populace because "their" god deemed it so.

    They would define marriage as "one man, one woman," but apparently have no problem with divorce and serial marriage (I guess so long as it's still just "one man, one woman-at-a-time").

    They would protect their corporate owners even as they continue their destruction of the American middle class.

    They decry "big government" while having no problems accepting government money for themselves or their families.

    Their narrow, hate-filled world view denies that America needs to be cognizant of its place in the world at large, not just the bully in the school yard.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I have decided to stop being anonymous and use an old name I used years ago from the book Ivanhoe. The name is witless.

    Warner,

    " It isn't hatred, it is admiration at their ability to suspend reality "

    I admire your ability to re engineer the English language.

    Kamikazi,

    " For the record, Anonymous, it's called satire. "

    And when Republicans do it, it is hate speech. I get it .

    But again I believe you guys will pretty much all vote Obama. It's not like Democrats will primary him and give us other choices . Me, I am pretty tired of Barak Obama and would vote for Mickey Mouse if the Republicans nominate him .

    At this point 5 more years of broken promises is not acceptable. So what would be wrong with Romney ? He seems to know economics and ain't too crazy .

    Charlie,

    " Well, I kind of do hate Bachmann and Perry. Why? Because they are xenophobic, intolerant racists who would turn this country into a third-world theocracy under sharia law, except that because it would be the Christian Bible, not the infidel Koran, that would be OK. "

    Wow ,I'm glad I don't have sensitive feelings . I happen to be somewhat religious and wouldn't want your rage directed at me.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Witless... well, I see a difference between Tea-Bagger and emphasizing the Barack HUSSEIN Obama or Tar Baby remarks...

    ReplyDelete
  40. Kamikazi, shame on you. Don't you know that making racist remarks is *EXACTLY* the same as making fun of delusional, ignorant, racist people?! Every right-winger knows this!

    - Badtux the Snarky Penguin

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anonymous / Witless,

    Top marks for the passive-aggressive behaviour I've seen so far. I'd be interested to read your response to Eric's screed, above, rather than trading shots on minor issues. And I do mean that - I'd really benefit from an in depth consideration of the issues, since US politics still baffles me (but then, so does the political landscape of my own country, but hey).

    I'd be willing to consider Romney in more depth. Do you think there's any way he can get the nomination and still be attractive beyond his base? How would you see him shaping his term in office? Who would his running-mate be?

    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  42. kamikazi,

    " well, I see a difference between Tea-Bagger and emphasizing the Barack HUSSEIN Obama or Tar Baby remarks..."

    Did or did he not get sworn in as Barak Hussein Obama ? Therefore Hussein is not an insult. And Congressman Lamborn apologized for the tar baby remark. I have never heard any leftwinger apologize for calling someone a tea bagger. In fact they are proud of using the term and in the same breath call for civility.

    But I do not care. I'm just wondering if I will get a chance to vote for someone, instead of having to vote against somebody I am afraid of . You guys will not .

    ReplyDelete
  43. Witless, are you so dense that you cannot tell the difference between calling someone the N-word, and calling someone a stupid crazy moron? Are you truly saying that racism is EXACTLY THE SAME as making fun of ignorant people?

    Here's a hint: A black person doesn't chose his genes. But with all the opportunities available to educate one's self in the Internet era, an ignorant person is ignorant by choice. Got it? Or do I need to spell it out in words of four or fewer letters for you?

    -- Badtux the Pointing-and-laughing Penguin

    ReplyDelete
  44. Witless,

    The President previous to the incumbent was sworn in as George Walker Bush, since that's his full name. You never heard his detractors emphasising his middle name as is done regularly with the current incumbent. I can't think of any other credible explanation for that other than to emphasise his 'foreign' nature. Do you recall on his inauguration the announcer pointedly called him 'Barack H. Obama' - using his middle initial rather than his middle name? There is a discomfort in much of the US about his 'foreignness'. It doesn't do you credit.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Witless... I will not aplogize for using the term teabagger... while it may be considered disrespectful it is not racist by any means... and an apology for the usage of ANY racist term just doesn't cut it. Unless you are a stupid ignorant racist. Oh, and since you know the meaning of satire how about trying CONTEXT... President was taking an oath and following the norm for that... posts CAPTILIZING his middle name are just plain racist and intended to incite... wait for it... HATE!

    Your arguments are the same echoed by conservatives everywhere... as long as you can justify it it's ok...

    And for the record... in the 2000 primaries I voted McCain... 2008... there was NO fricken way that was going to happen! I do believe in change and hope and I hope conservatives are ready for the change coming over the next year... DOMA will be repealed, Taxes for the rich will go up AND gas will drop eblow $3... Well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad!

    Jim, I apologize for hijacking your blog and will bow out now!

    ReplyDelete
  46. No need to bow out, @Kamikazi, I'm enjoying your comments.

    _______________

    Expanding on something Kamikazi said, insult is determined by intent, i.e. when a black rapper uses "nigger" in the context of his music, he's making a cultural statement. When a white redneck shouts the same word from a car window at a black man standing on the corner, it's a totally different thing.

    In a similar fashion, there is no reason whatsoever that President Obama shouldn't be proud of his middle name, it was after all the name of his father. However, when the commenters on the Yahoo news forum refer to him as HUSSEIN, they clearly intend that word to be an insult - just as a redneck shouting "nigger" at a black man on a street corner fully and intentionally means it to be a mortal insult.

    Specifically they intend "Hussein" to to mean that President Obama is other, a Muslim, a foreigner, a usurper, and a terrorist. Someone who doesn't not belong. Someone who doesn't deserve his position. Someone who is an enemy of America.

    I would have thought this self evident, and I strongly suspect that it is. I suspect that we're being baited. Witless' IP masker has a familiar scent.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Jim, of course you're being baited, and by an amateur, at that. Pretending to be savaged by your non-existent rage is so old hat. It's like a bad actor trying to fake a foul in b-ball.

    In any case, I followed a link here a couple weeks back. I must say, you have a way with words, and this post is right on. Not much to add, really; just...kudos.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Let's see, we've got the "I'm outa here" and then the "I must have hit a nerve", then the passive aggressive, and finally the reversal of "I know you are, but what am I?"

    Damn, one more and I get to yell "Bingo!"

    ReplyDelete
  49. @Steve, is that the square where he calls me Bradley Manning?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Screed? I prefer to think of my comments as... thorough.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I read your comment as "Enraged"

    What?

    ReplyDelete
  52. @ Eric - I try to temper my comments based on percieved comprehension levels. I am hopeful that when google+ kicks in fully it will have a crayon app...

    @ Jim, we have an ongoing controversy here in El Paso regarding providing benefits to domestic partners led by a less than lovable Pastor (Tom Brown). Anyway, I was surfing today and came across an old post of yours that I think could use some dusting off... I will add a comment to it to bring it back to your attention...

    ReplyDelete
  53. I read your comment as "Enraged"

    Oh my--I really wasn't enraged at all. If I'd been enraged, I probably would have deployed my favorite word and frequently. I don't see even a single "fuck" in my comment.

    ReplyDelete
  54. -Eric,

    My apologies: 'screed' was entirely the wrong word. That's what happens when I post on a site full of good writers. 'Like me! Like me!', I cry, and then use words I don't check properly in the vain hope that it makes me look cool. Or something.

    So, yeah. I really enjoy reading your thoughts -- please keep writing (goes to Jim as well).
    D
    -dodent: a really stupid rat

    ReplyDelete
  55. Thanks, Dan. I actually looked the word up again to make sure I wasn't off-base taking it as a negative, and technically you used it correctly: the primary definition is a long piece of writing, but (as you know) it's taken on the negative connotation of being a long ranty piece of writing, which hopefully isn't how I came off.

    If I did, a failure to communicate an idea is generally the fault of the writer and rarely (if ever) that of the reader, so it's all on me if I came off as more unhinged than I really am.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Eric not all rants are a bad idea. And I did not see that as a rant, but thoughtful.

    ReplyDelete
  57. @Warner, Eric's reasoned thoughtful comments hide a seething rage. In fact, at night Eric dresses up in spandex and prowls the mean streets of Gotham searching out evil doers upon which to vent his seething rage. True story.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Charlie nailed it right on the head. Bachmann and Perry scare the hell out of me, as well as, I'm guessing, Charlie. He's right in saying that they are xenophobic, intolerant racists. The difference between what he says and I see is this: they're using religion to justify their hate. I cannot even call them Christian in any sense, given that every statement they make contradicts what the Bible says.

    I don't get why people take these two jackasses so seriously as the answer to America's problems. They speak about how they'd create jobs, how they'd somehow eliminate our national debt, but I can't see how they would do it. Both have proven time and again that they only give a damn about their corporate masters. Bachmann and Perry have proven that time and time again. With respect to higher education, I can't stand with her at all for a very good reason: I'm currently a college student, and she voted against the very thing that helps low-income students obtain a degree: the raising of the Pell Grant.

    In that case, she made it clear that she's all for privatization of all financial aid available for students, and she said as much: "it fails students and taxpayers with gimmicks, hidden costs and poorly targeted aid. It contains no serious reform of existing programs, and it favors the costly, government-run direct lending program over nonprofit and commercial lenders." This was just a few years ago, during Bush's administration. What a stupid bitch.

    Both her and Perry, if either were elected, would do exactly what Charlie believes they would do. They would institute a theocratic government based off of their own interpretation of the Bible, if you can even call it an interpretation. Stoning for adultery, apostasy and any other thing that offends their sense of "Christian morality"? Expect it with those two. As well as denial of basic civil rights, if not outright harsh punishment, to anyone who they cannot tolerate. And people out there really want these clowns as the leader of our nation? Jim, I'm sorry to say this but if that ever happens in this country, I'll be the first to take up arms against them.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Jim, I used to live in Gotham, also known as Sodom on the Hudson. Never noticed people wandering around in spandex except in the meat packing district - where you can find any from the ruin of a reputation to the clothes of a Senator with the Senator inside.

    ReplyDelete
  60. -Eric: to confirm, definitely not ranty. Measured, thorough, engaging. By no means ranty. More, please!

    ReplyDelete
  61. Jim Wright ,

    " Expanding on something Kamikazi said, insult is determined by intent, i.e. when a black rapper uses "nigger" in the context of his music, he's making a cultural statement. When a white redneck shouts the same word from a car window at a black man standing on the corner, it's a totally different thing. "

    Where are my rubber boots, the muck is getting really deep in here . You just used the N word, but you get away with it in context. But then context is your argument, isn't it ?

    I have always believed that I am as good as anyone. You cannot complain about me using racist words and then use them yourself . I don't care about the context . I have watched black comedians performing in front of black audiences on late night TV and the N word was used 20 times in half an hour. In context! And the audience laughed and cheered .

    In spite of my trying to stay on good behavior here, I am no shrinking violet and can sling the colorful language as well as you, but I have no patience with your argument.

    ReplyDelete
  62. It isn't spandex, it's PVC. Well, the gimp mask is. The assless chaps are pleather and the cape was repurposed from a cotton-polyester blend bedsheet (I don't recall the percentages, but I'm pretty sure the package said it was flame-retardant). Get your facts straight.

    And if that sounds the least bit disturbing, you have to bear in mind: criminals are a cowardly, superstitious lot. Oddly, so are the policemen I keep trying to turn them over to. And those kids I saved from the evil criminal mastermind, Preschoolbusdriver (I don't think that name works, but apparently it's what she calls herself and every hero needs a nemesis, right?). Anyway, it is what it is. I am vengeance, I am the night, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  63. WOW! If I hadn't read Jim's post (or was aware of the deflection technique employed by conservatives) I would think that Jim was a racist pig and would not like him... Witless... why are you so obsessed with who anyone on this post is voting for... It's all about who we WON'T vote for...

    ReplyDelete
  64. Witless, I can only see three possibilities vis-a-vis your discussion of the n-word:

    1) You really don't get it and are living up to your nom-de-plume;

    2) You could get it if you wanted, but prefer to be an ass;

    3) You totally get it and you're trolling.

    Honestly, at this point I think I liked you better when you said you were leaving.

    ReplyDelete
  65. In spite of my trying to stay on good behavior here, I am no shrinking violet and can sling the colorful language as well as you, but I have no patience with your argument.

    You don't get that option, Witless, and your good behavior is seriously lacking. I'm going to do you the compliment of assuming that you're being an ass and deliberating trolling and not an actual idiot.

    Either way, Tex, Wayne, Witless, or whatever you're calling yourself today, you're done. You know the routine, don't bother to comment again.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Jim Wright,

    " You know the routine, don't bother to comment again. "

    I know the routine. Disagree and get thrown off. Bye.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Actually, I think it is more "consistently be an ass, and get thrown off" myself...

    ReplyDelete
  68. I wish that the qualifications for becoming President were the same as the qualifications for being a good President.

    Until those get a lot closer, we're going to have issues with our 'choices' for the office.

    This election is shaping up to be worse than the last one. It's not even the choice between two evils, since that at least implies some bit of intelligence. This is going to be the choice between two pits of quicksand: the only questions are how dirty everything is going to get and if we're going to survive (metaphorically, I hope) the experience.

    ReplyDelete
  69. @Witless, the passive/aggressive troll bit doesn't work on me, I'd think you'd have figured that out by now.

    The rules of this blog are clearly stated. Your ejection has nothing to do with disagreeing and everything to do with you acting like a dick. If you don't like how you're being treated then either stop acting like a dick or stop coming here, it's really that simple.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Jim....A very good post. The comments are uh, entertaining? I didn't take your post as angry, just clearly thought out and closely aligned to the rest of the "normal" world. There is a "stealth" GOPer out there somewhere, and will show themselves when it is time. I'm not talking about SP, and Hunstman is looking a little left of Obama. But is still milquetoast.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Hunstman is looking a little left of Obama

    Yeah, right up until yesterday when he suddenly said he'd consider being Bachman's Veep. Seriously, Jon, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?

    ReplyDelete
  72. My guess is you are a former Rethug what with your poetic waxing on about the good ole days of the GOP.

    Unlike some of us who are enjoying every second of the Rethug death spasms and can't wait for the inevitable end. Good riddance.

    ReplyDelete
  73. @Anonymous, You got all that from two lines at the end of the post?

    Once the "Rethugs" are gone, then what? Everybody in America joins hands with the Democrats and we all live happily ever after in some 1960's utopian wet dream?

    Your so-called death spasms are costing all us. The entire nation is paying for it.

    ReplyDelete
  74. "Once the 'Rethugs' are gone, then what?"

    Well, then, obviously, they leave a power vacuum, and that's when you set your plans to become Emperor of the Universe in motion. Duh!

    ReplyDelete
  75. I'm the one who clicked "I hate you so much," only because you can write -- and formulate thoughts -- so much better than I. Heh.

    ReplyDelete
  76. @ Norma, that is SO true... I sit here and try to parlay my thoughts to words and get distracted or frustrated and walk away with the intention of coming back and never do! At least your posts give me focus and concentration but I have much too much disregard for the whole system that I tend to make light of it

    As a general rule I do not believe anything that I read in blogs, ESPECIALLY if a teabagger recites it as gospel and try to verify what i read... I am batting 100% with what you write Jim unlike the latest receipt I have claiming that President Obama is in collusion with the UN to ban gun ownership in America and that he killed the purchase of excess M1 Garands from South Korea... after just a little research both have been proven false by using verifiable sources other than FUX news wannabes...

    ReplyDelete
  77. "Your so-called death spasms are costing all us. The entire nation is paying for it." To the tune of an extra $322 per person for just the brinksmanship engaged in earlier this month (according to a post on Slacktivist). So much for "fiscal conservatism."

    Oh, and before I forget (and because it's another election cycle and the trolls will be twice as thick this time), make your own Bingo cards and play the at-home version of our game. Seriously, dudes, people are writing dissertations on the repeatability of the same argument forms. Gets some new tools. These are worn out.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Jim,
    I came upon your blog several months ago and I want you to know I really enjoy your wit and your insightful views be it left, right or center. Your views are real close to mine. I too am an Independent and Huntsman seems to be the only seemingly sane GOP candidate but has NO chance of winning the nod. I will take my time deciding who I will vote for to be our President- believe it or not I think the one we have at this moment is a good guy trying to do good things but no matter what he does or proposes there is a force out there that wants failure at all cost so they can stand up and say "See I told you so" (much like my children trying to get in the last word!) I am all for peoples right of religious freedom but the Bachmanns, Perrys, and Palins of the world scare me(I work with one). Dominionism is a real factor with these nuts and John-Q-public is too stupid too recognize it. Government is necessary to control the masses-we need it. Religion is a form of government it too controls the masses but in a different way. IMHO it does not belong within our political system. (Sorry if I do not make much sense or am not following along correctly I just felt the need to comment!)

    On another note your turned art is fabulous!!! My daughter is an artist and I am going to send her this link-she will love your work! (btw the music portion is my son :^})

    ReplyDelete
  79. @art-n-musicmom, don't worry, you make plenty of sense. Welcome aboard.

    ReplyDelete
  80. You forgot the blame game part. But then that could be a whole article in itself. They sound like drunks gone suddenly dry and finding themselves having to face the consequences. It's everyone else's fault

    ReplyDelete
  81. For right now I am an Obama supporter but that could (very unlikely) change. And my Obama support is that while there are folks that believe that he hasn't done enough I think he has done as good as could be expected given the hand he's been dealt. I also believe that the Democrats in congress have given in for their political survival with disregard for the President. I also believe that his long term plans will supercede his shortterm failures...

    ReplyDelete
  82. Hey there Jim,

    I just wanted to say thanks for your thoughtful post.

    Somehow everything has been distilled down into "MY PARTY MUST WIN AT ALL COSTS" and not voting for the best candidate no matter the political affiliation.

    I'm not sure exactly when or how it started, though I'm pretty sure it might destroy our country.

    ReplyDelete
  83. "The folks who back Michelle Bachman are far more likely to vote for Cannibal Hitler’s Head in a Pickle Jar than a democrat."

    Wait ... CHHiaPJ is running? Because I can really get behind that candidate!

    Tangentially, I think the overlap of the upcoming 9/11 anniversary hysteria with the ever-lengthening campaign season will be equal parts appalling and amusing. Any bets on who will be the first Presidential wannabe to decry the politicizing of the commemoration, while doing exactly that?

    ReplyDelete
  84. Late to the party, but two thumbs up. Except for the part about greatness accomplished by conservatives while liberals were dancing and using crystals. I think liberals were working in professional positions too, and I was marching for the ERA, working on a woman's right to choose, and demonstrating against our secret involvements in Central America. Dancing yes, but dancing naked no (skinny dipping naked yes) and I've never been into the Aquarius, crystal, new-agey thing.

    ReplyDelete

Be sure to read the commenting rules before you start typing. Really.