PDA

View Full Version : GOPtalk, part 2


bjkeefe
07-16-2010, 02:53 PM
Eh, the old thread devoted to observing the Republican Party and its slide down the depressing spiral (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=3773) was getting too long. Therefore, let's have a fresh one.

Start us off, won't you, O Shrill One (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/opinion/16krugman.html)?

Redo That Voodoo

Republicans are feeling good about the midterms — so good that they’ve started saying what they really think. This week the party’s Senate leadership stopped pretending that it cares about deficits, stating explicitly that while we can’t afford to aid the unemployed or prevent mass layoffs of schoolteachers, cost is literally no object when it comes to tax cuts for the affluent.

And that’s one reason — there are others — why you should fear the consequences if the G.O.P. actually does as well in November as it hopes.

For a while, leading Republicans posed as stern foes of federal red ink. Two weeks ago, in the official G.O.P. response to President Obama’s weekly radio address, Senator Saxby Chambliss devoted his entire time to the evils of government debt, “one of the most dangerous threats confronting America today.” He went on, “At some point we have to say ‘enough is enough.’ ”

But this past Monday Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, was asked the obvious question: if deficits are so worrisome, what about the budgetary cost of extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, which the Obama administration wants to let expire but Republicans want to make permanent? What should replace $650 billion or more in lost revenue over the next decade?

His answer was breathtaking: “You do need to offset the cost of increased spending. And that’s what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset the cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.” So $30 billion in aid to the unemployed is unaffordable, but 20 times that much in tax cuts for the rich doesn’t count.

The rest. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/opinion/16krugman.html)

chiwhisoxx
07-16-2010, 04:15 PM
Jon Kyl was being stupid here, as people like Reihan Salam and Kevin Williamson have already pointed out. But it's ironic for Krugman to point this out, as he's the opposte end of the crazy economic perspective. On one hand, we have people like Kyl engaging in "starve the beastism", claiming tax cuts will always pay for themselves. They won't. But on the other hand, we have Krugman advocating spending as much money as possible during a recession, claiming no real negative repercussions will result. They will.

Full Williamson: http://www.nationalreview.com/exchequer/231104/na-ve-tax-cuts-vs-na-ve-stimulus

AemJeff
07-16-2010, 04:22 PM
Jon Kyl was being stupid here, as people like Reihan Salam and Kevin Williamson have already pointed out. But it's ironic for Krugman to point this out, as he's the opposte end of the crazy economic perspective. On one hand, we have people like Kyl engaging in "starve the beastism", claiming tax cuts will always pay for themselves. They won't. But on the other hand, we have Krugman advocating spending as much money as possible during a recession, claiming no real negative repercussions will result. They will.

Full Williamson: http://www.nationalreview.com/exchequer/231104/na-ve-tax-cuts-vs-na-ve-stimulus

I think calling Krugman "crazy" would carry a significant burden of proof. You might disagree with him philosophically or on the merits of a particular issue; but he's synonymous with (iconic of) one of the poles of contemporary economic thinking, and is certainly considered to hold an authoritative position within that spectrum.

bjkeefe
07-17-2010, 10:47 AM
RedFace in the RedState (http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2010/07/14/oh-alabama-the-devil-fools-with-the-best-laid-plan/), once again.

And sadly, this means no more campaign commercials (http://wonkette.com/415972/angry-dingbat-yells-at-long-dead-historical-figures) of awesomeness (http://wonkette.com/416326/furious-insane-teabagger-rick-barber-will-soon-suffer-heart-attack).

Also: bets on whether, nonetheless, the GHEMRotRSTF will still declare victory (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/11/move-over-mark-halperin.html)?

Whatfur
07-17-2010, 12:27 PM
I think calling Krugman "crazy" would carry a significant burden of proof. You might disagree with him philosophically or on the merits of a particular issue; but he's synonymous with (iconic of) one of the poles of contemporary economic thinking, and is certainly considered to hold an authoritative position within that spectrum.

Krugman provides proof quite often on his own. I have provided some (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=123245#post123245)right here a few times.

Here are a couple economists who are not more worried about getting invited to the next liberal soiree than they are about correctly analyzing the current situation. (http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/) This has the 5th segment queued up...watch them all. Probably won't see them matched up here together...would love to see them matched up with the hack you defend.

listener
07-17-2010, 12:53 PM
RedFace in the RedState (http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2010/07/14/oh-alabama-the-devil-fools-with-the-best-laid-plan/), once again.

And sadly, this means no more campaign commercials (http://wonkette.com/415972/angry-dingbat-yells-at-long-dead-historical-figures) of awesomeness (http://wonkette.com/416326/furious-insane-teabagger-rick-barber-will-soon-suffer-heart-attack).

Also: bets on whether, nonetheless, the GHEMRotRSTF will still declare victory (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/11/move-over-mark-halperin.html)?

Ah yes, I remember seeing that "Gather your armies" ad, and Dave Weigel's analysis of it and of the primary race in general. IIRC, Weigel leaned toward thinking that Barber's strategy in running those ads would not ultimately be effective.

bjkeefe
07-17-2010, 12:55 PM
Back a couple of years ago, on this site (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=89280&highlight=idaho#post89280), a claim was made:

Take it from someone who was born and raised in Los Angeles, visited Idaho when he was 22, moved there as part of a telecommunications project at 27, bought a farm there at 35 and spends about half his time there, Idaho is just like most of 'the rest of the US'.

As was this (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=89382&highlight=idaho#post89382), also posted on this site, from about the same time.

And believe me, I love the fact that ID is not Seattle or New York City (or Los Angeles). People are the same everywhere ...

And now from elsewhere and more recently, we have this story (http://wonkette.com/416647/idaho-republicans-hate-word-fiesta-for-reason-you-may-suspect), which begins as follows.

Idaho Republicans Hate Word ‘Fiesta’ For Reason You May Suspect

Some depressing county fair in Idaho decided its theme this year would be “Fiesta at the Fair,” as that seems exotic and fun (depressing). So of course the county GOP decided that this was an evil Messican idea (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700046570/GOP-in-Idahos-Bonner-County-doesnt-like-Fiesta-theme.html). “Bonner County fair board Chairman Tim Cary said the fair was just looking for a theme that’s fun to decorate with, and the choice had nothing to do with official language or immigration disputes.” NICE TRY. The Bonner County GOP’s booth will say “celebrate” instead of “fiesta” and they have “asked Arizona officials for some license plates to put in the booth.” This gets more dumb and depressing, as you can imagine.

[...]

Wonder what happened to all those people up there, who used to be (?) "just like most of 'the rest of the US'" and "the same everywhere."

I suppose we could make things hang together if we concluded that Idaho Republicans are not any longer like "'the rest of the US'."

Whatfur
07-17-2010, 01:34 PM
Fork in the road. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/07/16/rep_paul_ryan_a_time_for_choosing.html)

bjkeefe
07-17-2010, 02:37 PM
Fork in the road. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/07/16/rep_paul_ryan_a_time_for_choosing.html)

"Are we going to reclaim the American idea -- an entrepreneurial economy where you make the most of your life, you tap your potential, we reinvigorate the principles of liberty, freedom, free enterprise -- and defend the morality of that -- or are we going to abandon that

and once again let fear and bigotry replace thinking, and thus elect a bunch of Republicans? Are we going to let ourselves get fooled once again into believing that the party who thinks all problems are solved by giving tax cuts to the rich actually gives a shit about small town RealAmericans™ like you and me? Are we going to pretend once again that the only thing preventing everyone in the country from becoming a millionaire is those few remaining shreds of consumer and environmental protection remaining on the books?

Fixt.

No charge for the translation. I'm here to help.

bjkeefe
07-17-2010, 08:04 PM
Who said these things?

1:

In an interview with the Associated Press last week, [name1] said tea partiers are actually helping Democrats, given their support of novice candidates like Sharron Angle who might blow chances at unseating the party in power.

"[...] My sources in Nevada say with Sharon Angle there's no way Harry Reid loses in Nevada," [name1] said. S/He also said thanks to Rand Paul's candidacy, "that's a seat [Republicans] could lose."

"... at the moment there is not a cohesive Republican strategy of this is what we're going to do. And certainly among the tea party types there's clearly no strategy of this is what we're going to do," s/he said.

a. Robert Bennet
b. Donna Brazile
c. Tim Kaine
d. Joe Klein
e. Andrea Mitchell
========================================

2. Regarding the Virginia tea party people:

“With this group, if you can walk and chew gum at the same time, you think you can be a member of Congress.”

a. John Cole
b. Jane Hamsher
c. Robert Hurt
d. Rachel Maddow
e. Chris Rock
========================================

3.

"The problem with the Tea Party, I think it's just unsustainable because they can never come up with a coherent vision for governing the country. It will die out," s/he said.

[name3] also said s/he challenged a group of Tea Partiers in a meeting: "'What do you want to do? You take back your country -- and do what with it?'...Everybody went from being kind of hostile to just dead silent."

a. Eric Alterman
b. Lindsey Graham
c. Mickey Kaus
d. Ezra Klein
e. Christina Romer
========================================

4.

In an interview with the Associated Press, [name4] suggested "that tea party favorites such as former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin and right-wing talk show hosts like Glenn Beck are the culprits" of "demagoguery" that threatens the Republican party long term.

[name4] didn't directly name the tea party movement, but challenged one of the key talking points tea partiers picked up from Palin during the health care debate.

"There were no death panels in the bill ... and to encourage that kind of fear is just the lowest form of political leadership. It's not leadership. It's demagoguery."

a. Eric Holder
b. Arianna Huffington
c. Bob Inglis
d. Paul Krugman
e. Kathleen Sebelius
========================================


(answers (http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/791/quizanswer.png) | details (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/the-top-5-republicans-who-think-the-tea-partiers-are-bad-news.php?ref=fpa) | h/t (http://www.alan.com/2010/07/16/five-republicans-who-denounce-tea-parties/))

listener
07-17-2010, 10:04 PM
Who said these things?

...

Well, ya kinda gave the game away by putting it in this thread... ;)

But I guess I've been paying more attention this week than I'd thought -- I saw the interview with #4, and had heard about 1 and 3. After all this time, it is mildly encouraging to finally begin hearing such words.

bjkeefe
07-17-2010, 11:23 PM
Well, ya kinda gave the game away by putting it in this thread... ;)

Yeah, I probably should have put it in the Dem thread, huh?

But I guess I've been paying more attention this week than I'd thought -- I saw the interview with #4, and had heard about 1 and 3. After all this time, it is mildly encouraging to finally begin hearing such words.

That it is. But let's wait and see how much of an effort is made to purge them. I have a feeling things are going to have to continue to get uglier before they get better.

chiwhisoxx
07-17-2010, 11:33 PM
And the string of never ending concern trolling continues

AemJeff
07-17-2010, 11:41 PM
And the string of never ending concern trolling continues

That's a mis-characterization I think.

bjkeefe
07-18-2010, 12:27 AM
That's a mis-characterization I think.

That's a polite way of putting it. I'd say it was more like throwing out a poorly-understood buzzword, just to be contrary. A little bit of piddle on the ground before fleeing again, from someone who has put forth approximately zero effort the past few days to say anything more than neener neener boo boo.

To think that only a few days I was standing up for chi as someone worth engaging with, and a hopeful sign that we were adding another worthwhile conservative to the community. Oh well!

chiwhisoxx
07-18-2010, 01:54 AM
It's funny, in a sense, I think you'd be better off if you actually WERE concern trolling. Maybe you weren't; I assume on some level that if you believe the things you say you do about the Republican Party, then it would be of concern to you. Maybe you don't care. But like it or not, they're going to play a substantial role in governing going forward. I care about the general health of the Democratic Party, because I think debate and back in forth is better for public policy.

I dunno, I wouldn't say I'm fleeing. I'm re-evaluating. You're not someone who is easy to debate BJ. I was pretty naive with the front page stuff up until a few days ago, when I delved deeper into these forums. And you're just fucking relentless man. Seeing these forums for the first time was like in Raiders of the Lost Ark when the Gestapo dude looks at the spirits and his face melts.You probably have started like 60% of the threads on this page, and they're all in a pretty similar vein. They aren't aimed towards promoting back and forth and debate. And I don't think you can honestly tell me they are. Making a thread that you can update seventeen times a day with "LOL, LOOK AT DIS WIGNUT!!1111" doesn't really seem like something that's going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

I think you probably want a real debate on some level, but you have nasty habit of acting like the Nurse Ratchet of these threads. You can't just say "this goes and this doesn't". I mean you can say it, but you kind of act like you expect it to be authoritative. So maybe condense your GOP hating into one thread?

Let me put it to you this way, and if you respond to nothing else, please just respond to his. How would you respond if we flipped spots? Say you're me, and I'm you, and you walk into these forums and see the sheer volume of hostility towards your viewpoints. Not disagreeing with them in deep, reasoned, policy critiques, but the worst kind of nasty internet vitriol. Do you think you would then want to have serious discussions with me? I'm actually asking. Believe it or not, I have no interest in this being acrimonious. And to be honest, I get along with all sorts of people here, many of whom I disagree with. So I don't think you can pin it on my narrow mindedness.

bjkeefe
07-18-2010, 10:32 PM
... please just respond to his. How would you respond if we flipped spots?

I'd probably look for the most obnoxious, immature, spiteful, bitter, insecure commenter I could find and ally myself with him.

Oh, no, wait. That's what you'd do. And did. Learning anything yet?

As to the rest of your quivering-chin post, I don't know what to tell you. Sounds like you're asking for a copy of Learn How to Behave Like An Adult in 28 Days! and I don't have one to offer. I suspect there may be no royal road. You'll just have to figure it out for yourself, and steel yourself to the reality that it will take some time and effort, and it won't be without its occasional setbacks.

Meantime, I'd say that an extra dram or two of effort put toward resisting the temptation to whine on an hourly basis about how I am So Mean and making this site not your happy place would probably help you on your journey. We do see, every so often, people who sign up to post on this site, who appear to have done so solely to complain about me, or me and the other regularly posting liberals, and you know what? They eventually slink away, having gotten no satisfaction. Every single time.

If you don't like what I post, don't read it. Use the Ignore List feature if you lack willpower.* But unless you truly have nothing better to do with your life, don't waste any more time trying to get me to change what or how often I choose to post. Your mewling means nothing to me.

==========

* [Added] Third possibility: do what I do when I see your furry friend has added to several of his pet Life, the Universe and Everything threads, like "Poser" and whatnot, since the last time I visited this site. Just go to that forum's index page (here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=15)), click "Forum Tools" and in the drop-down menu, click "Mark This Forum Read."

chiwhisoxx
07-18-2010, 11:41 PM
I'd probably look for the most obnoxious, immature, spiteful, bitter, insecure commenter I could find and ally myself with him.

Oh, no, wait. That's what you'd do. And did. Learning anything yet?

As to the rest of your quivering-chin post, I don't know what to tell you. Sounds like you're asking for a copy of Learn How to Behave Like An Adult in 28 Days! and I don't have one to offer. I suspect there may be no royal road. You'll just have to figure it out for yourself, and steel yourself to the reality that it will take some time and effort, and it won't be without its occasional setbacks.

Meantime, I'd say that an extra dram or two of effort put toward resisting the temptation to whine on an hourly basis about how I am So Mean and making this site not your happy place would probably help you on your journey. We do see, every so often, people who sign up to post on this site, who appear to have done so solely to complain about me, or me and the other regularly posting liberals, and you know what? They eventually slink away, having gotten no satisfaction. Every single time.

If you don't like what I post, don't read it. Use the Ignore List feature if you lack willpower. But unless you truly have nothing better to do with your life, don't waste any more time trying to get me to change what or how often I choose to post. Your mewling means nothing to me.

I'm not sure who you're referring to in the first sentence, but I'm guessing it's Whatfur? How in the world have I allied myself with him? Seriously, go back and read my posts, I literally haven't even MENTIONED him in a post, let alone defend him in anyway. So get that straight, for whatever it's worth.

I realize I'm not going to change how you do things around here now. And you're right, it was foolish to try. But I don't think instigating some self reflection on your part was out of line. You asked me to self reflect over something I wrote on these boards only a few days ago, why can't I request the same?

It's not so much that I'm looking for a manuscript on how to behave like an adult (and before I forget, honestly, we can do better in terms of insults than quivering chin, right? This isn't 19th century Britain, is it?) but how to behave like an adult amongst many people who don't. Stop lumping yourself in with the other liberals, saying that people complain about them, and you! No BJ, it's you. I talk to Jeff. I talk to others. We can disagree and debate without it becoming overly toxic. This is what I was talking about with self reflection.

I obviously can't dictate how you post here. But I think one of my questions still remains on the table. Do you think the way you conduct yourself here really is the best way to promote frank and productive dialogue? You may not care, and that's fine. But I would have thought you were someone who would have aimed for goals like that. Maybe I'm wrong. Think about this though, as a parting shot. And once again, there's a good chance I'm wrong here, as I haven't been around here nearly as long as you have. Has there ever been a conservative commenter who spent significant time here that you have real and honest dialogues with for extended periods of time?

bjkeefe
07-18-2010, 11:44 PM
Seriously, go back and read my posts, ...

Request denied. Once was bad enough.

Do you think the way you conduct yourself here really is the best way to promote frank and productive dialogue?

Yes.

With those who have shown some indication that they are up to participating, I mean.

As for people lost in their petty grievances, like you and your furry friend: to the extent that you're not just outright ignored, the only thing to do here is mock. And you know what? That in and of itself helps promote FaPD, too, because far more often than not ('fur is an exception), the mockery sends the mocked back to the echo chambers and cocoons they're really seeking. And then the rest of us can have good discussions without having to stop every five minutes to wipe the noses of people such as yourself.

In short, the notion of productive dialog with someone acting like you've been acting for the past week is ludicrous. If you want that to change, find something, you know, productive to talk about. Because biting at my ankles ain't it, by anyone's definition.

bjkeefe
07-22-2010, 02:00 PM
http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/6375/sharronangle.jpg
"Running for Senate is hard!"

Of course you were dying for some fresh news from our beloved favorite Nevada Republican! Let us ask her some questions (http://wonkette.com/416837/sharron-angle-only-metaphorically-dead#ixzz0uR0LlASD)!

The wily Angle once again proved her nimble ability to avoid this terrible media-beast by a clever stratagem: calling a press conference, then not actually talking to the press or otherwise having a conference with it (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/21/at-press-conference-angle-answers-no-questions/?fbid=Bophp7Uv8JP).

Held at a Reno-area business, the event was promoted on the Angle campaign website as a “press conference” in which Angle was to publicly sign a “death tax repeal pledge.”

But after delivering a short speech, Angle turned away and left the event without allowing reporters to ask questions.

(Try this instead (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/22/at-press-conference-angle-answers-no-questions/?iref=allsearch&fbid=KjojB5dK3pU) of the quoted link, I think.)

If she can't stand up to the "lamestream media," how will she stand up to Ahmadinejad, al Qaeda, or ObamaStalinCastroLeninHitler?

==========

[Added] Previous Dangle of the Angle coverage starting here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=167259#post167259). (Using threaded mode will help.)

bjkeefe
07-22-2010, 02:53 PM
RNC fails to report $7M in debt to FEC
Party treasurer faults Steele

The Republican National Committee failed to report more than $7 million in debt to the Federal Election Commission in recent months - a move that made its bottom line appear healthier than it is heading into the midterm elections and that also raises the prospect of a hefty fine.

In a memo to RNC budget committee members, RNC Treasurer Randy Pullen on Tuesday accused Chairman Michael S. Steele and his chief of staff, Michael Leavitt, of trying to conceal the information from him by ordering staff not to communicate with the treasurer - a charge RNC officials deny.

Mr. Pullen told the members that he had discovered $3.3 million in debt from April and $3.8 million from May, which he said had led him to file erroneous reports with the FEC. He amended the FEC filings Tuesday.

Campaign-finance analysts said that simply misreporting fundraising numbers to the FEC can lead to millions of dollars in fines and that criminal charges can be levied if the actions are suspected to be intentional.

The rest (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/20/rnc-fails-to-report-to-fec-7-million-in-debt/?page=1). Via (http://wonkette.com/416823/michael-steele-caught-trying-to-hide-7-million-in-rnc-debt).

chiwhisoxx
07-22-2010, 03:10 PM
The rest (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/20/rnc-fails-to-report-to-fec-7-million-in-debt/?page=1). Via (http://wonkette.com/416823/michael-steele-caught-trying-to-hide-7-million-in-rnc-debt).

Shockingly enough, the mainstream story is a woeful oversimplication...there's actually very little there there in this case.

bjkeefe
07-22-2010, 03:15 PM
Shockingly enough, the mainstream story is a woeful oversimplication...there's actually very little there there in this case.

He asserted emptily.

I expect that you would be hopping up and down like a butthurt bunny if a story came out about the DNC having to face these accusations, which they felt were serious enough to require hiring the best lawyers in town, not to mention their own ethics committee recommending additional internal reviews, right after their chairman's own review was completed. Not to mention the treasurer accusing the boss of hiding information and blocking communication -- this is the smell of sweat from someone who's worried his ass is gonna be on the line.

But no! You know what's a big story? Some liberal blogger said something mean about Rush Limbaugh in an email! And then someone else LOLed! So let's talk about that instead! Forever!

Kind of comical for you to refer to the Washington Times as "mainstream," as well. Just how far gone to the right are you?

chiwhisoxx
07-22-2010, 03:35 PM
He asserted emptily.

I expect that you would be hopping up and down like a butthurt bunny if a story came out about the DNC having to face these accusations, which they felt were serious enough to require hiring the best lawyers in town, not to mention their own ethics committee recommending additional internal reviews, right after their chairman's own review was completed. Not to mention the treasurer accusing the boss of hiding information and blocking communication -- this is the smell of sweat from someone who's worried his ass is gonna be on the line.

But no! You know what's a big story? Some liberal blogger said something mean about Rush Limbaugh in an email! And then someone else LOLed! So let's talk about that instead! Forever!

Kind of comical for you to refer to the Washington Times as "mainstream," as well. Just how far gone to the right are you?

I wasn't specifically referring to the Washington Times as mainstream; nearly the exact same story ran in every news outlet that carried the thing. That's what I was referring to. How far right am I? I don't know, but by all accounts, you're probably considerably further to the left than I am to the right, but that's neither here nor there.

The point is, maybe consider that I have inside infomration on this that you don't, and maybe I don't it's a good idea to discuss the gory details on a public forum? You may not believe me, but you should at least realize why I didn't fully flesh out the story.

bjkeefe
07-22-2010, 04:06 PM
I wasn't specifically referring to the Washington Times as mainstream; nearly the exact same story ran in every news outlet that carried the thing.

You could, and should, have said that before. You can't just respond to a post that links to two sources and assume everyone will figure you weren't talking about either of them.

The point is, maybe consider that I have inside infomration on this that you don't, and maybe I don't it's a good idea to discuss the gory details on a public forum? You may not believe me, but you should at least realize why I didn't fully flesh out the story.

Not teh dreaded inside infom-ration!

Release the Whitey Tapes, Larry!

(? (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=larry_johnsons_strange_trip))

bjkeefe
07-23-2010, 05:23 PM
1: SECESSION!!!1! (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/gop-rep-and-tn-gov-candidate-wamp-states-might-have-to-consider-separation-from-this-government.php)

http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2009/10/09/news/photos_stories/zach_wamp--300x300.jpg

Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN), who is running in a heated three-way Republican primary for governor of Tennessee, has a dire warning about the new health care reform law: If a new Congress and president aren't elected in order to repeal the bill, states might just have to secede.

[...]

Wamp also praised Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) -- who has also floated the idea of secession -- for leading the fight against the health care bill. "Patriots like Rick Perry have talked about these issues because the federal government is putting us in an untenable position at the state level," said Wamp.

2. IMPEACHMENT!!!1! (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/tom-tancredo-impeach-obama-fox-news-thats-ridiculous-video.php)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/03/23/washington/tancredo.topi.190.jpg

[Tom] Tancredo has an op-ed (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/22/the-case-for-impeachment/) in the Washington Times calling President Obama "a more serious threat to America than al Qaeda" and suggesting that he ought to be impeached.

[...]

The ex-congressman said Obama "wants to destroy the constitution" and is more dangerous than al Qaeda because he represents an internal threat.

"He is a committed idealogue, and when you have somebody like that in the White House, it is to me a scary proposition, and I think that we can muster our defenses much more easily to take care of al Qaeda than we can to take care of the president."

In related news:

1. Two other Republicans will probably be labeled RINOs.

2. Megyn "Fox (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=171173#post171173)" Kelly is virtually certain to be declared a full-fledged member of the Biased Liberal InTheTankForObaMedia.

==========

(pic sources: Wamp (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/item_T4TnBMZX140oFZLEuEGmWI) | Tancredo (http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/t/tom_tancredo/index.html))

bjkeefe
07-23-2010, 05:41 PM
1: SECESSION!!!1! (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/gop-rep-and-tn-gov-candidate-wamp-states-might-have-to-consider-separation-from-this-government.php)

[...]

2. IMPEACHMENT!!!1! (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/tom-tancredo-impeach-obama-fox-news-thats-ridiculous-video.php)

[...]

Quick follow-up: Here is the artwork the Washington Times ("mainstream media," according to at least one commenter (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=171179&highlight=washington+times+mainstream#post171179) on this site) chose to decorate Tancredo's op-ed (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/22/the-case-for-impeachment/) calling for impeachment of the president:

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/9708/wingnutsviewofobamascon.png

Hey, 'fur, can I get a "stay classy?"

bjkeefe
07-23-2010, 10:33 PM
Newell (http://gawker.com/5595071/karl-roves-big-fundraising-total-comes-from-four-billionaires):

How did American Crossroads, Karl Rove's "grassroots" fundraising operation, suddenly leap from $200 in monthly donations (http://gawker.com/5570004/karl-roves-top-fundraising-group-made-200-last-month) to a total of $4.7 million? Apparently 97% comes from (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/07/23/rove_group_billionaire_donors/index.html) four billionaires.

bjkeefe
07-24-2010, 05:30 PM
http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/9569/normsy.jpg
(Above: What a difference a haircut makes.)

Norman. Norman.

Don't get stabbed in the back (http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2010/07/22/republicans-are-growing-very-tired-of-putting-up-with-that-black-man-who-is-just-ruining-everything-for-everyone/), Mike! Least of all by a guy who is the only person in the world with more fiscal responsibamility (http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/37369749.html) problems than yours!

==========

(pic source for the more likable Norm (http://www.bloodygoodhorror.com/bgh/features/05/05/2010/10-mothers-day-movies))

chiwhisoxx
07-24-2010, 06:59 PM
http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/9569/normsy.jpg
(Above: What a difference a haircut makes.)

Norman. Norman.

Don't get stabbed in the back (http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2010/07/22/republicans-are-growing-very-tired-of-putting-up-with-that-black-man-who-is-just-ruining-everything-for-everyone/), Mike! Least of all by a guy who is the only person in the world with more fiscal responsibamility (http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/37369749.html) problems than yours!

==========

(pic source for the more likable Norm (http://www.bloodygoodhorror.com/bgh/features/05/05/2010/10-mothers-day-movies))

God that link about Steele was painfully moronic. If you're going to criticize Steele about all the (mostly legitimate) problems associated with his tenure as Chairman, maybe don't insinuate that the reason conservatives have a problem with him is race in every other sentence. It basically answered it's own hypothetical question that no one asked.

bjkeefe
07-24-2010, 07:07 PM
God that link about Steele was painfully moronic.

I'm sure everyone else also lacking a sense of humor would agree.

chiwhisoxx
07-24-2010, 08:09 PM
I'm sure everyone else also lacking a sense of humor would agree.

Sarcasm doesn't translate very well to text, and it hardly be unprecedented for a left wing blog to hurl scurrilous accusations of racism at conservatives.

bjkeefe
07-24-2010, 08:38 PM
Sarcasm doesn't translate very well to text, ...

That is sometimes true, but if you can't figure it out when reading TBogg, you're really humor-challenged.

... and it hardly be unprecedented for a left wing blog to hurl scurrilous accusations of racism at conservatives.

Scurrilous does not mean well-justified. Just so you know.

AemJeff
07-24-2010, 08:53 PM
Sarcasm doesn't translate very well to text, and it hardly be unprecedented for a left wing blog to hurl scurrilous accusations of racism at conservatives.

I agree with Brendan. Just inserting the adjective "scurrilous" isn't an argument. I accuse conservatives of racism all the time. I do it by name (not by category) and I always have an argument and examples to cite.

Can you mount a credible argument that Steele would have his job if a black man hadn't been a serious opponent for the Republicans at the time he got the job? It's not like the Republican bench is flush with black folks at that level. The language in the TBogg piece was pretty obviously a shot at actual rhetoric aimed at Obama from the Republican side, and switching up to name Steele was an obvious turn. And - do you really think there aren't people, high up in the party, whose feelings aren't uncomfortably close to the parody there?

chiwhisoxx
07-24-2010, 09:17 PM
I agree with Brendan. Just inserting the adjective "scurrilous" isn't an argument. I accuse conservatives of racism all the time. I do it by name (not by category) and I always have an argument and examples to cite.

Can you mount a credible argument that Steele would have his job if a black man hadn't been a serious opponent for the Republicans at the time he got the job? It's not like the Republican bench is flush with black folks at that level. The language in the TBogg piece was pretty obviously a shot at actual rhetoric aimed at Obama from the Republican side, and switching up to name Steele was an obvious turn. And - do you really think there aren't people, high up in the party, whose feelings aren't uncomfortably close to the parody there?

I'm not inside the brains of people high within the party, so I don't know. Is it possible? Sure. But I don't know, and I'm going to be the one to introduce pseudo racist things into their brains. Did the fact that he was black have something to do with the fact that he got the gig? Little bit of a touchy subject. But I don't think your statements are crazy by any means. I was referring to criticism of him being viewed as racist, not the job selection process.

bjkeefe
07-24-2010, 09:36 PM
I'm not inside the brains of people high within the party, so I don't know. Is it possible? Sure. But I don't know, and I'm going to be the one to introduce pseudo racist things into their brains.

Paging Dr. Freud. Slip in Aisle Nein.

bjkeefe
07-26-2010, 12:44 PM
Eh, I dunno, Eric Lach (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/colorado-republican-ken-buck-caught-on-tape-again-calling-birthers-dumbasses.php). Rather than snickering at this guy, I think we should be applauding him.

Colorado Republican Ken Buck Caught On Tape (Again!) -- This Time Calling Birthers 'Dumbasses'

By the time his campaign's over, they're going to need the jaws of life to extract Ken Buck's foot from his mouth.

Buck is the Tea Party candidate running against establishment pick Jane Norton in Colorado's Republican Senate primary. His latest gaffe is being caught on tape by a Democratic operative saying, "Will you tell those dumbasses at the Tea Party to stop asking questions about birth certificates while I'm on the camera?" according (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15600796) to The Denver Post.

Maybe if he develops the guts to stand by his Kinsley gaffes and not walk them back, at least.

bjkeefe
07-27-2010, 06:31 PM
As in ... Republicans and hidden infrared video cameras?

If you're thinking Paris Hilton sex tape!, ew. And come on. These are REPUBLICANS.

But it's still pretty funny (http://gawker.com/5597882/candidates-hidden-camera-immediately-catches-opponent-removing-campaign-signs).

listener
07-27-2010, 10:37 PM
As in ... Republicans and hidden infrared video cameras?

If you're thinking Paris Hilton sex tape!, ew. And come on. These are REPUBLICANS.

But it's still pretty funny (http://gawker.com/5597882/candidates-hidden-camera-immediately-catches-opponent-removing-campaign-signs).

Hee hee. Maybe they were concerned about leaving fingerprints but not about infrared video cameras because their detective manual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hardy_Boys_Detective_Handbook) was not the most up-to-date.

bjkeefe
07-27-2010, 10:46 PM
Hee hee. Maybe they were concerned about leaving fingerprints but not about infrared video cameras because their detective manual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hardy_Boys_Detective_Handbook) was not the most up-to-date.

Oh, come now. That's not fair! I am sure they have kept up closely with their heroic DAs (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=171755&highlight=undead+Fred#post171755).

And if that's not cutting-edge, I don't know what is.

bjkeefe
07-28-2010, 12:41 AM
... what do you suppose becomes of that non-partisan, non-interventionist, domestic-concerns-only claptrap apologists for the teabaggers were trying to sell, just a few months ago?

Foreign Policy (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/07/26/tea_party_caucus_members_endorse_israeli_attack_on _iran) (via Steve M. (http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2010/07/teabaggers-saber-rattling-imagine-my.html) via DougJ (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/07/27/principled-supporters-of-small-government/), both of whose posts are also worth a look):

Tea Party Caucus members endorse Israeli attack on Iran

[...]

Almost two dozen Tea Party-affiliated lawmakers cosponsored a new resolution (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_documents/100726_HRes1553.pdf) late last week that expresses their support for Israel "to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force."

The lead sponsor of the resolution was Texas Republican Louie Gohmert, one of four congressmen to announce the formation of the 44-member Tea Party caucus at a press conference (http://gawker.com/5592861/bachmann-releases-tea-party-caucus-member-list-alleged-members-confused) on July 21. The other three Tea Party Caucus leaders, Michele Bachmann, R-MN, Steve King, R-IA, and John Culberson, R-TX, are also sponsors of the resolution. In total, 21 Tea Party Caucus members have signed on, according to the latest list of caucus members (http://bachmann.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=199440) put out by Bachmann's office.

[...]

Notably absent from the resolution -- and indeed, from the Tea Party Caucus -- is Ron Paul, the Texas congressman and 2008 presidential candidate. Paul, who leads the libertarian wing of the Tea Party movement, was one of only 11 members of the House to vote against the recent Iran sanctions bill, ...

[...]

Last week, a Tea Party-affiliated grassroots organization launched a nationwide campaign (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/07/23/tea_party_activists_come_out_against_start) to build popular opposition to the administration's nuclear reductions treaty with Russia, called New START. The group is led by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's wife Ginny and it dovetails with similar efforts (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/07/14/romney_fundraising_off_of_new_start) by former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

The resolution also continues a theme among Tea Party leaders, such as Sarah Palin, who are seeking to separate (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/07/01/the_tea_party_s_hawk) the movement's domestic policies, which call for small government and fiscal restraint, from libertarian views on foreign policy, promoting instead an aggressive, unilateralist view of world affairs and unchecked military spending.

[...]

It is an oversimplification, but I'm afraid not too much of one, to say that what we're seeing here is the same old Republican Party dynamic that we've seen for decades, just with some slightly new bunting -- End Times-obsessed Christianists and My Country Right or Wrong chickenhawks using talk-radio-driven populist disgruntlement as a catalyst, their allies in the rest of the rightwing media helping to hype the hell out of the "movement" and its "grass roots" nature, and then once it's gotten to the point where the CW is those with the new label are the new force to be reckoned with in Washington, they go right back to what they always crave: escalation of war, especially in the Middle East and against the godless Commies; i.e., especially as it can be portrayed as a Manichean Struggle. And the mouthbreathers will just keep eating it up and yelling for more.

That is one of the major things that's at stake in the midterms.

bjkeefe
07-30-2010, 10:12 PM
Undead Fred makes the mistake of running an ad of His Undead Self on alicublog.

Libtard snarkers are go!!! (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2010_07_25_archive.html#6981872636573800155)

listener
07-30-2010, 11:00 PM
Undead Fred makes the mistake of running an ad of His Undead Self on alicublog.

Libtard snarkers are go!!! (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2010_07_25_archive.html#6981872636573800155)

"Debbie, get me someone at marketing! NOW!!!"

bjkeefe
07-30-2010, 11:45 PM
It is an oversimplification, but I'm afraid not too much of one, to say that what we're seeing here is the same old Republican Party dynamic that we've seen for decades, just with some slightly new bunting -- End Times-obsessed Christianists and My Country Right or Wrong chickenhawks using talk-radio-driven populist disgruntlement as a catalyst, ...

Oh, there he goes, exaggerating again. I mean, c'mon. We're only talking about (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/huckabee-and-lahaye-discuss-how-obama-bringing-about-armageddon) the guy who came in second for the GOP presidential nomination last time around, and another guy who sells books a million at a time, amirite?

(h/t: Ken Layne (http://wonkette.com/417045/obama-causing-the-apocalypse-according-to-mike-huckabees-teevee-show))

listener
07-31-2010, 12:31 AM
Oh, there he goes, exaggerating again. I mean, c'mon. We're only talking about (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/huckabee-and-lahaye-discuss-how-obama-bringing-about-armageddon) the guy who came in second for the GOP presidential nomination last time around, and another guy who sells books a million at a time, amirite?

(h/t: Ken Layne (http://wonkette.com/417045/obama-causing-the-apocalypse-according-to-mike-huckabees-teevee-show))

Aw, c'mon, don't be coy. Here's the headline:

Huckabee and LaHaye Discuss How Obama Is Bringing About Armageddon (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/huckabee-and-lahaye-discuss-how-obama-bringing-about-armageddon)

bjkeefe
08-01-2010, 02:19 AM
"Debbie, get me someone at marketing! NOW!!!"

And take a meeting with Marco (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2010/08/something-wrong-with-my-cookies.html)'s people, too!

Whatfur
08-01-2010, 03:29 PM
Party of privilege. (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/08/01/the_yacht_vs_the_pickup_truck/)

bjkeefe
08-01-2010, 03:36 PM
Eh, the old thread devoted to observing the Republican Party and its slide down the depressing spiral (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=3773) was getting too long. Therefore, let's have a fresh one.

Start us off, won't you, O Shrill One (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/opinion/16krugman.html)?

Redo That Voodoo

Republicans are feeling good about the midterms — so good that they’ve started saying what they really think. This week the party’s Senate leadership stopped pretending that it cares about deficits, stating explicitly that while we can’t afford to aid the unemployed or prevent mass layoffs of schoolteachers, cost is literally no object when it comes to tax cuts for the affluent.

And that’s one reason — there are others — why you should fear the consequences if the G.O.P. actually does as well in November as it hopes.

For a while, leading Republicans posed as stern foes of federal red ink. Two weeks ago, in the official G.O.P. response to President Obama’s weekly radio address, Senator Saxby Chambliss devoted his entire time to the evils of government debt, “one of the most dangerous threats confronting America today.” He went on, “At some point we have to say ‘enough is enough.’ ”

But this past Monday Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, was asked the obvious question: if deficits are so worrisome, what about the budgetary cost of extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, which the Obama administration wants to let expire but Republicans want to make permanent? What should replace $650 billion or more in lost revenue over the next decade?

His answer was breathtaking: “You do need to offset the cost of increased spending. And that’s what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset the cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.” So $30 billion in aid to the unemployed is unaffordable, but 20 times that much in tax cuts for the rich doesn’t count.

The rest. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/opinion/16krugman.html)

And now, this:

Four Deformations of the Apocalypse

IF there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/us/politics/25tax.html) would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation’s public debt — if honestly reckoned to include municipal bonds and the $7 trillion of new deficits baked into the cake through 2015 — will soon reach $18 trillion. That’s a Greece-scale 120 percent of gross domestic product, and fairly screams out for austerity and sacrifice. It is therefore unseemly for the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, to insist that the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers be spared (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/opinion/16krugman.html) even a three-percentage-point rate increase.

More fundamentally, Mr. McConnell’s stand puts the lie to the Republican pretense that its new monetarist and supply-side doctrines are rooted in its traditional financial philosophy. Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts — in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses, too. But the new catechism, as practiced by Republican policymakers for decades now, has amounted to little more than money printing and deficit finance — vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes.

This approach has not simply made a mockery of traditional party ideals. It has also led to the serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations that have crippled our economy. More specifically, the new policy doctrines have caused four great deformations of the national economy, and modern Republicans have turned a blind eye to each one.

[...]

The second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40 percent of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970. This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.

What shrill liberal is being shrill now (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?pagewanted=all)?

David Stockman, a director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan ...

bjkeefe
08-02-2010, 04:00 PM
TBogg calls attention (http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2010/08/01/crack-up-at-the-bedlamite-corral/) to David Klinghoffer (National Review contributor and senior fellow at the Discovery Institute) and his new piece in the LA Times ...

From neocons to crazy-cons
Once the conservative movement was about finding meaning in private life and public service. But it has undergone a shift toward demagoguery and hucksterism.

... as well as Prof. Stephen Bainbridge, who blogs ...

It's getting to be embarrassing to be a conservative

... featuring his very own Top 10 List!

(Ordinarily, I'd give all the links. But this time, you must get them from TBogg, because his post deserves to be read in full (http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2010/08/01/crack-up-at-the-bedlamite-corral/).)

==========

[Added] More on this theme from Doug Mataconis (via Bainbridge): "Is The Right Losing Its Mind? (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/is-the-right-losing-its-mind/)"

bjkeefe
08-04-2010, 02:58 AM
http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/6375/sharronangle.jpg
"Running for Senate is hard!"

[...]

This 26-second clip (http://wonkette.com/417122/sharron-angle-doesnt-understand-why-the-press-isnt-her-bff) of Angle expressing her attitude toward the press must be seen to be believed.

listener
08-04-2010, 03:23 AM
This 26-second clip (http://wonkette.com/417122/sharron-angle-doesnt-understand-why-the-press-isnt-her-bff) of Angle expressing her attitude toward the press must be seen to be believed.

As much as I would like to see Ms. Angle stamped out before she multiplies, this clip seemed to me to be rather obviously and clumsily edited. And I must say, what's fair to Shirley Sherrod should be fair to Sharron Angle as well (and not just because of the coincidence of the double "R's). Angle is enough of a walking debunking of herself to require such editing.

[Added] On repeated viewing, it seems that it may be that the audio is unedited, while the quick cutting of the video gives the impression of arbitrary editing. If so, I retract the above objections.

bjkeefe
08-04-2010, 03:51 AM
As much as I would like to see Ms. Angle stamped out before she multiplies, this clip seemed to me to be rather obviously and clumsily edited. And I must say, what's fair to Shirley Sherrod should be fair to Sharron Angle as well (and not just because of the coincidence of the double "R's). Angle is enough of a walking debunking of herself to require such editing.

[Added] On repeated viewing, it seems that it may be that the audio is unedited, while the quick cutting of the video gives the impression of arbitrary editing. If so, I retract the above objections.

Before hurling accusations (not only about the authenticity of the clip, but by implication, about the credibility/gullibility of me and your Wonkette), it probably would have been worth doing a quick Google (http://www.google.com/search?q=sharron+angle+carl+cameron&hl=en&prmd=o&sa=X&ei=TBpZTOyJHoGDnQfTmdXzCA&ved=0CBAQpwU&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A7%2F30%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A8% 2F03%2F2010), don't you think? Then you would have seen NRO raising an eyebrow (http://www.nationalreview.com/battle10/242321/did-she-just-say-out-loud-elizabeth-crum), not to mention this WaPo post (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/08/sharron-angle-press-should-ask.html), which also links to a Fox Nation post (trying feebly (http://www.thefoxnation.com/politics/2010/08/03/sharron-angle-too-honest-latest-interview) to spin it as "Sharron Angle too honest in latest interview.").

No official transcripts, but some partial ones. And you'd have seen no one complaining who you'd expect to be complaining if the clip seemed mucked with. And then there is context -- it's not as though she has a recent history at odds with such statements.

Knee-jerk skepticism is still knee-jerk, is my point.

==========

[Added] I probably wouldn't have made a big deal out of this, in light of your added note, but I have to say, that initial outburst ... going right to a Shirley Sherrod comparison? Really? Really?

We got enough problems in this country with the RWNM dreaming up false equivalences. No need for people like you to aggravate the situation.

listener
08-04-2010, 04:26 AM
Before hurling accusations (not only about the authenticity of the clip, but by implication, about the credibility/gullibility of me and your Wonkette), it probably would have been worth doing a quick Google (http://www.google.com/search?q=sharron+angle+carl+cameron&hl=en&prmd=o&sa=X&ei=TBpZTOyJHoGDnQfTmdXzCA&ved=0CBAQpwU&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A7%2F30%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A8% 2F03%2F2010), don't you think? Then you would have seen NRO raising an eyebrow (http://www.nationalreview.com/battle10/242321/did-she-just-say-out-loud-elizabeth-crum), not to mention this WaPo post (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/08/sharron-angle-press-should-ask.html), which also links to a Fox Nation post (trying feebly (http://www.thefoxnation.com/politics/2010/08/03/sharron-angle-too-honest-latest-interview) to spin it as "Sharron Angle too honest in latest interview.").

No official transcripts, but some partial ones. And you'd have seen no one complaining who you'd expect to be complaining if the clip seemed mucked with. And then there is context -- it's not as though she has a recent history at odds with such statements.

Knee-jerk skepticism is still knee-jerk, is my point.

==========

[Added] I probably wouldn't have made a big deal out of this, in light of your added note, but I have to say, that initial outburst ... going right to a Shirley Sherrod comparison? Really? Really?

We got enough problems in this country with the RWNM dreaming up false equivalences. No need for people like you to aggravate the situation.

Thanks for the clarifying links. My comment was based on a first impression of what I saw. The choppy and awkward video editing raised a flag for me because it visually reminded me of "chop jobs" I've seen elsewhere. I wasn't intending to cast aspersions on your credibility. It's just that it's important to me to question what seems questionable to me, whether or not I agree with the point of view being put forth. You are correct that I could have done a little research into the matter before I posted my comment. Fortunately, lazy people like me can count on indefatigable researchers like you to come up with the kind of supporting links that you provided.

bjkeefe
08-04-2010, 04:38 AM
Thanks for the clarifying links. My comment was based on a first impression of what I saw. The choppy and awkward video editing raised a flag for me because it visually reminded me of "chop jobs" I've seen elsewhere. I wasn't intending to cast aspersions on your credibility. It's just that it's important to me to question what seems questionable to me, whether or not I agree with the point of view being put forth. You are correct that I could have done a little research into the matter before I posted my comment. Fortunately, lazy people like me can count on indefatigable researchers like you to come up with the kind of supporting links that you provided.

You're welcome, but at risk of belaboring, I'd like to restate the part I cared about more. I would have had no problem with your saying something like, "Hmmm, that clip looked a little choppy to me. Anyone else think it seemed mashed up?" It was the immediate leap from a moment of suspicion to a conclusion of THIS IS JUST LIKE SHIRLEY SHERROD!!!1! that put me off.

bjkeefe
08-05-2010, 01:38 AM
... no, no, calm down. This is not going to be another post about how Liz Cheney wants to bomb the browns, for freedom, peace, and Jeebus. This is about an offspring of another Bush VP:

Two recent mailers sent by the Ben Quayle campaign contain some curious images and statements by the 33-year-old lawyer and flush-with-cash candidate in Arizona’s crowded 3rd Congressional District primary.

Quayle is depicted in playful scenes with two toddler-aged girls. Underneath one image, the text reads, in part: “Tiffany and I live in this district and we are going to raise our family here.”

It’s not a stretch to make the assumption that the cute tots - one sitting on his lap; the other sitting next to him - are his daughters. But that’s not the case. The recently married Quayle doesn’t have kids.

Emph. added!

Well, what? ARE THEY HIS "GIRLFRIENDS"???

It Would Be Irresponsible NOT To Speculate.™

(It's actually only a little less creepy than that.)

(source (http://azcapitoltimes.com/strike-everything/2010/08/03/quayle-mailers-not-actually-what-meets-the-eye/) | via (http://wonkette.com/417177/dan-quayles-son-pretends-to-be-family-friendly-by-kidnapping-children))

bjkeefe
08-05-2010, 02:15 PM
B'head David Corn reports (http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/08/bob-inglis-tea-party-casualty):

It was the middle of a tough primary contest, and Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) had convened a small meeting with donors who had contributed thousands of dollars to his previous campaigns. But this year, as Inglis faced a challenge from tea party-backed Republican candidates claiming Inglis wasn't sufficiently conservative, these donors hadn't ponied up. Inglis' task: Get them back on the team. "They were upset with me," Inglis recalls. "They are all Glenn Beck watchers." About 90 minutes into the meeting, as he remembers it, "They say, 'Bob, what don't you get? Barack Obama is a socialist, communist Marxist who wants to destroy the American economy so he can take over as dictator. Health care is part of that. And he wants to open up the Mexican border and turn [the US] into a Muslim nation.'" Inglis didn't know how to respond.

As he tells this story, the veteran lawmaker is sitting in his congressional office, which he will have to vacate in a few months. On June 22, he was defeated (http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003688244&cpage=1) in the primary runoff by Spartanburg County 7th Circuit Solicitor Trey Gowdy, who had assailed Inglis for supposedly straying from his conservative roots, pointing to his vote for the bank bailout and against George W. Bush's surge in Iraq. Inglis, who served six years in Congress during the 1990s as a conservative firebrand before being reelected to the House in 2004, had also ticked off right-wingers (http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB1000142405274870479210457526447148983 3504.html) in the state's 4th Congressional District by urging tea-party activists to "turn Glenn Beck off" and by calling on Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) to apologize for shouting "You lie!" at Obama during the president's State of the Union address. For this, Inglis, who boasts (literally) a 93 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union, received the wrath of the tea party, losing to Gowdy 71 to 29 percent. In the weeks since, Inglis has criticized Republican House leaders for acquiescing to a poisonous, tea party-driven "demagoguery (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/07/09/gop_leaders_let_demagogues_set_tone_lawmaker_says/)" that he believes will undermine the GOP's long-term credibility. And he's freely recounting his frustrating interactions with tea party types, while noting that Republican leaders are pushing rhetoric tainted with racism, that conservative activists are dabbling in anti-Semitic conspiracy theory nonsense, and that Sarah Palin celebrates ignorance.

During his primary campaign, Inglis repeatedly encountered enraged conservatives whom he couldn't—or wouldn't—satisfy. Shortly before the runoff primary election, Inglis met with about a dozen tea party activists at the modest ranch-style home of one of them. Here's what took place:

I sat down, and they said on the back of your Social Security card, there's a number. That number indicates the bank that bought you when you were born based on a projection of your life's earnings, and you are collateral. We are all collateral for the banks. I have this look like, "What the heck are you talking about?" I'm trying to hide that look and look clueless. I figured clueless was better than argumentative. So they said, "You don't know this?! You are a member of Congress, and you don't know this?!" And I said, "Please forgive me. I'm just ignorant of these things." And then of course, it turned into something about the Federal Reserve and the Bilderbergers and all that stuff. And now you have the feeling of anti-Semitism here coming in, mixing in. Wow.

For Inglis, this is the crux of the dilemma: Republican members of Congress know "deep down" that they need to deliver conservative solutions like his tax swap. Yet, he adds, "We're being driven as herd by these hot microphones—which are like flame throwers—that are causing people to run with fear and panic, and Republican members of Congress are afraid of being run over by that stampeding crowd." Inglis says that it's hard for Republicans in Congress to "summon the courage" to say no to Beck, Limbaugh, and the tea party wing. "When we start just delivering rhetoric and more misinformation...we're failing the conservative movement," he says. "We're failing the country." Yet, he notes, Boehner and House minority whip Eric Cantor have one primary strategic calculation: Play to the tea party crowd. "It's a dangerous strategy," he contends, "to build conservatism on information and policies that are not credible."


Read the whole thing (http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/08/bob-inglis-tea-party-casualty).

(h/t: Jim Newell (http://gawker.com/5603712/defeated-gop-congressman-dishes-his-tea-party-confessions))

bjkeefe
08-06-2010, 10:18 PM
http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/6375/sharronangle.jpg
I'm in ur house, eating ur civil rights!

The latest bit of truth (http://wonkette.com/417229/pac-questionnaire-collects-some-more-of-sharron-angles-fun-beliefs) slips out:

PAC Questionnaire Collects Some More of Sharron Angle’s Fun Beliefs

The AP obtained a PAC questionnaire filled out by Sharron Angle, and surprisingly, it reveals that she has some interesting beliefs (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40756.html)! The questionnaire had 36 questions and boxes to mark “yes” or “no,” so thankfully it was easy for Sharron Angle to fill out. The PAC “Government Is Not God” has endorsed her campaign. Government Is Not God sounds like it is against lawmaking based on religion, but they are apparently dumb, because it’s really the opposite; they say they seek “the election to Congress of men and women who hold conservative beliefs on both moral and economic issues.” So “God Should Be Government” would be a better name. Anyway, they have some fun ideas about social policies (especially involving the gays!) and Sharron Angle answered “yes” to every one (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/Angle-Questionnaire080510.pdf) of their questions.

The rest (http://wonkette.com/417229/pac-questionnaire-collects-some-more-of-sharron-angles-fun-beliefs). See also (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/sharron_angle_i_wouldnt_take_m.html) (via (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/05/sharron-angle-make-gay-ad_n_672549.html)).

bjkeefe
08-11-2010, 06:49 PM
BREAKING! BREAKING! BREAKING!

Must credit Wonkette (http://wonkette.com/417325/whoops-2012-gop-convention-logo-is-pretty-mosquey) and TPM (http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/does-the-2012-gop-convention-logo-include-a-minaret-or-is-it-a-cupola.php).

http://a.imageshack.us/img251/1248/drudgeflashinglight2.gif http://a.imageshack.us/img217/6624/repubconventionlogo.jpg http://a.imageshack.us/img251/1248/drudgeflashinglight2.gif

Above is the logo for the 2012 Republican National Convention, with an arrow added to show THE MUSLIN MOSQUE MINARET!!!1!

Vote Democratic or surrender to Sharia Law!!!1!

[Added] Given five minutes, I'm sure Frank Gaffney could also find a crescent (http://www.google.com/cse?cx=007432832765683203066%3Aw5evdpfzlks&ie=UTF-8&q=frank+gaffney+crescent&sa=Search&siteurl=www.google.com%2Fcse%2Fhome%3Fcx%3D0074328 32765683203066%253Aw5evdpfzlks).

AemJeff
08-11-2010, 08:16 PM
BREAKING! BREAKING! BREAKING!

Must credit Wonkette (http://wonkette.com/417325/whoops-2012-gop-convention-logo-is-pretty-mosquey) and TPM (http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/does-the-2012-gop-convention-logo-include-a-minaret-or-is-it-a-cupola.php).

http://a.imageshack.us/img251/1248/drudgeflashinglight2.gif http://a.imageshack.us/img217/6624/repubconventionlogo.jpg http://a.imageshack.us/img251/1248/drudgeflashinglight2.gif

Above is the logo for the 2012 Republican National Convention, with an arrow added to show THE MUSLIN MOSQUE MINARET!!!1!

Vote Democratic or surrender to Sharia Law!!!1!

[Added] Given five minutes, I'm sure Frank Gaffney could also find a crescent (http://www.google.com/cse?cx=007432832765683203066%3Aw5evdpfzlks&ie=UTF-8&q=frank+gaffney+crescent&sa=Search&siteurl=www.google.com%2Fcse%2Fhome%3Fcx%3D0074328 32765683203066%253Aw5evdpfzlks).

There are, in fact, two crescents - as anybody can plainly see, and which you would have pointed out if you weren't a dhimmi symp:


http://lh3.ggpht.com/_5Yv6WXb2dFg/TGM89ZNKxMI/AAAAAAAAASU/KzQ8GOb8r6E/repubconventionlogo.jpg

bjkeefe
08-11-2010, 10:23 PM
There are, in fact, two crescents - as anybody can plainly see, and which you would have pointed out if you weren't a dhimmi symp:


http://lh3.ggpht.com/_5Yv6WXb2dFg/TGM89ZNKxMI/AAAAAAAAASU/KzQ8GOb8r6E/repubconventionlogo.jpg

LOL! Nice.

bjkeefe
08-12-2010, 03:14 AM
LOL! Nice.

Also, in my own defense, maybe I've been brainwashed? Because it's become clear that the Muslin Menniss has in fact been in control of the USAUSAUSA for decades. Deep within the bowels of America's favorite companies! Example: "This plush interior will not stand (http://crookedtimber.org/2010/08/08/this-plush-interior-will-not-stand/)."

bjkeefe
08-12-2010, 04:12 PM
http://a.imageshack.us/img821/2886/bachmannandbatboy.jpg http://a.imageshack.us/img526/6375/sharronangle.jpg
(Michele Bachmann, Sharron Angle, and someone else whose party affiliation has not yet been fully confirmed)


I just got an email from the Tarryl Clark (http://tarrylclark.com/) campaign, saying that Crazy Eyes Bachmann recently claimed that teachers and other public employees will be "laundering" "taxpayer money" which will then be used to reelect Democrats and punish Republicans.

This strikes me as plausible. That she would say this, I mean. As with Sarah Palin (http://www.rumproast.com/index.php/site/comments/worst._half._term._governor._evar._part_iv--the_unraveling/) rolling her eyes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLCoJo5-GVQ) upon learning that a disgruntled erstwhile constituent was a teacher, Republicans like these love to hate on teachers. And why not? Uneducated voters are their best friends.

I decided to check on it anyway, and surprise, surprise, it's true. And of course she said it while on FoxNews. While painting it as a Pelosi plot. (Shocker, huh?) And also unsurprisingly, the even crazier Sharron Angle, who was also on the show, echoed the sentiment. As Greg Sargent observes (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/bachmann_and_angle_agree_state.html):

Keep in mind that Angle dismissed the BP escrow money secured by the White House as a "slush fund," an assertion she later retracted. Call it the Bachmann-ization of GOP candidates: The constant elevation of the rhetorical stakes to the point where good faith disagreement is no longer possible or even desirable.

The Tea Party hallucinations have grown so overheated that politics can no longer merely be clash of visions or ideologies. It's about rescuing the republic from evildoers. Everything Democrats do must of necessity be nefarious, even vaguely criminal.

http://a.imageshack.us/img217/9051/bachmannandangle.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQofDWOa_JE)

Video of this crazy talk (whence the screen grab above) has been posted by harryreid2010 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQofDWOa_JE). Glad to see someone is paying attention. We do not actually want people like Michele Bachmann and Sharron Angle running our country. That would be very bad.

bjkeefe
08-12-2010, 04:53 PM
[...]

http://a.imageshack.us/img217/9051/bachmannandangle.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQofDWOa_JE)

[...]

And just in case the Republican Party base was too dumb to follow the conspiracy theory Bachmann and Angle were yelling about on Fox last night, the Trike Force (http://www.redstate.com/dia0420/2010/08/12/anatomy-of-the-latest-bailout/) is here to help!

http://a.imageshack.us/img441/9701/teachingliestowingnuts.png

Right Wing Noise Machine? What Right Wing Noise Machine?

(via (http://wonkette.com/417354/joe-biden-travels-about-the-globe-crashing-into-everything))

bjkeefe
08-12-2010, 05:07 PM
http://bit.ly/CrackerGOP (http://bit.ly/CrackerGOP)

Get that on a bumper sticker, now.

(h/t: @edroso (http://twitter.com/edroso/status/20982187580))

Whatfur
08-12-2010, 10:18 PM
Realism. (http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=253292&id=361997510504)

bjkeefe
08-12-2010, 10:45 PM
Realism. (http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=253292&id=361997510504)

Must every word be so perfectly Orwellian whenever Bush is the topic?

Yes. Worst President Ever and Biggest Phony Ever.

bjkeefe
08-12-2010, 11:05 PM
Must every word be so perfectly Orwellian whenever Bush is the topic?

Yes. Worst President Ever and Biggest Phony Ever.

Also, thanks for the excellent Mission Accomplished (http://wonkette.com/417365/despite-nations-sadness-voters-approve-of-democrats-33-to-gops-24), Mr. W!

Speaking of unpopular things that just bum the hell out of everybody, Iraq’s “top army officer” says the U.S. military needs to stay put for a little while … another decade sounds good, right? “I would say to politicians: The U.S. army must stay until the Iraqi army is fully ready in 2020.” Uhh. [BBC World Service (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10947918)]

Go get L. "Paul" Bremer and George "Slam Dunk" Tenet, because they need another Bush Medal of Freedom (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63623-2004Dec14.html)!

TwinSwords
08-12-2010, 11:26 PM
LOL. Nothing ever did make the right quiver and swell like a picture of Dubya with Teh Troops.

Whatfur
08-12-2010, 11:32 PM
LOL. Nothing ever did make the right quiver and swell like a picture of Dubya with Teh Troops.

Haha, and nothing gets the moonbats flying more than Dubya. Can't stand the genuineness, I dare say?

AemJeff
08-12-2010, 11:41 PM
Haha, and nothing gets the moonbats flying more than Dubya. Can't stand the genuineness, I dare say?

Yup, the preppy from New Haven, the Skull and Bones Yalie who parades his down-home Texas affect. The genuineness, it simply oozes from him. Having said that, I don't doubt his feeling for those soldiers, whom he is responsible for putting in harm's way in what (he would no doubt not agree) was the dumbest fucking strategic mishap in the history of this nation. He owes those boys, big.

TwinSwords
08-13-2010, 12:24 AM
Haha, and nothing gets the moonbats flying more than Dubya. Can't stand the genuineness, I dare say?

What a strange idea. Why do you think liberals are bothered by whatever genuineness George Bush might have? Why the hell would we care? I'm genuinely curious why you think this would be a sore spot. Can you explain?

bjkeefe
08-13-2010, 06:34 AM
Haha, and nothing gets the moonbats flying more than Dubya. Can't stand the genuineness, I dare say?

You mean the sort of genuineness displayed by buying a "ranch" right before running for president, using it for eight years of brush-cutting photo ops, and then selling it as soon as his time in office ran out?

Also: "Now watch this drive! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3p9y_OEAdc)" Mmm, yeah. Sincerity!

And let's not even get started on "compassionate conservatism" or his Jeebus talk. Or his love to play soldier-boy dress-up, except, you know, when it actually was time for him to serve his country.

Whatfur
08-13-2010, 07:57 AM
What a strange idea. Why do you think liberals are bothered by whatever genuineness George Bush might have? Why the hell would we care? I'm genuinely curious why you think this would be a sore spot. Can you explain?

Contrast. <insert rage and threat here>

Whatfur
08-13-2010, 08:01 AM
You mean the sort of genuineness displayed by buying a "ranch" right before running for president, using it for eight years of brush-cutting photo ops, and then selling it as soon as his time in office ran out?

Also: "Now watch this drive! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3p9y_OEAdc)" Mmm, yeah. Sincerity!

And let's not even get started on "compassionate conservatism" or his Jeebus talk. Or his love to play soldier-boy dress-up, except, you know, when it actually was time for him to serve his country.

Funny stuff.

bjkeefe
08-13-2010, 08:25 AM
You mean after that conjugal visit your mom made or after your replying to my post?

Noted for the record.

Whatfur
08-13-2010, 10:18 AM
Noted for the record.

Pbbbt!

handle
08-13-2010, 05:01 PM
Funny stuff.

I got your "realism":

The right's unconditional love of this Regan wannabe is what sent the county fleeing left enough to get your pal Obama elected.. chew on that.

Your party may never fully recover from kissing the asses of the rich and privileged (elitist? they cornered the market!) in such a blatant manner, while waging war on the middle class.

For these wanton acts of self destruction, I will be forever indebted to you, W, and your brilliant Rovian strategists.

Thinking in the short term has become your modus operandi, and your failures have only begun to mount. Denial and fabrication will not see you through this. Only by abandoning the folly of the Bush years will you find a way to rectify your ongoing nightmare.

Choke on that pretzel, Mr. propagandist-for-the-oil-industry.
Or in your words: Take my "friendly advice".

Oh, and thanks again!

bjkeefe
08-13-2010, 11:51 PM
Funny stuff.

A more mature 'fur (yeah, I know, but just play along):

Yeah, you're right. I got nothing.

bjkeefe
08-14-2010, 02:35 AM
http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/6375/sharronangle.jpg
(Above: product of excessive homeschooling?)

Jack Stuef (http://wonkette.com/417432/certainly-you-assumed-sharron-angle-likes-the-un-but-you):

Sharron Angle was forced to speak words (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/13/sharron-angle-suggests-us_n_681198.html) yesterday, as she has yet to come up with the brilliant idea to have her campaign say she has a throat infection that makes her mute for the next few months.

Don't give her any ideas, Jack! Certainly, we must hear all about her plans (http://www.8newsnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=12972359) to shut down the UN! Because?

"We are -- I don't see any place in the Constitution with those priorities about the United Nations."

Hurrah for the Constitution! (Matthew Lee weeps.)

But once she's saved all that money (?) by shooting the UN building with her guns, what's next?

KILL SOCIAL SECURITY.

"When I said privatize, that's what I meant. That I thought we would just have to go to the private sector for a template on how this is supposed to be done. However, I've since been studying and Chile has done this," said Angle.

But wait! Maybe the Angle campaign reads Wonkette after all?

8 News NOW has asked the Angle campaign for time to ask her more questions about her foreign and domestic policy plans. A campaign spokesperson says 8 News NOW will be given the time to ask more questions, but that it could take some weeks to arrange an interview.

Emph. added.

bjkeefe
08-15-2010, 11:53 AM
Ben Smith and Maggie Haberman: "GOP takes harsher stance toward Islam (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41076.html)."

Pretty much just straight reporting. Lots of quotes. A good effort at documenting where the leaders of the Republican Party are at on this issue.

(h/t: @daveweigel (http://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/21235160430) and @AdamSerwer (http://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/21238504295))