Skip

The Crack-Up Continues
July 17, 2009 10:55 AM   Subscribe

The conservative movement continues to suffer problems, within the Republican Party, without, and, well...
posted by StrikeTheViol (125 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

 
I'm gonna sit back and drink a beer from the rooftops. Any other liberals want to join me in a healthy mocking of the wackjobby rightists?
posted by kldickson at 10:59 AM on July 17, 2009


There is no birther movement. There is, however, a "no black man will ever be my president" movement, but they can't call themselves that, so they have concocted a conspiracy to sound less crazy.

HEY IT HAS NOT WORKED.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:02 AM on July 17, 2009 [71 favorites]


What our parents lied? What if our doctors lied? Maybe we are ALL really foreign citizens!!
posted by hermitosis at 11:03 AM on July 17, 2009


So why doesn't he just produce the birth certificate?
posted by Faze at 11:05 AM on July 17, 2009


Considering the fact that conservatism, period, is founded on pseudo-'order' and making the personal political and screaming about taxes because some people don't want to pay a cent to fund things that they and others will use and screaming 'THEY'RE GONNA TAKE OUR JEEEEEERBS' and racism and sexism and homophobia and prolifetardery and other bad things that threaten to drive us back to the Stone Age, I'm not surprised.
posted by kldickson at 11:07 AM on July 17, 2009 [1 favorite]


This one?
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:07 AM on July 17, 2009 [6 favorites]


“If you were born in Bali, for example,” Okubo explained, “you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate. But it’s become very clear that it doesn’t matter what I say.”

Is there a way to donate to buy Republicans tin foil hats? Maybe we could do a telethon to raise funds.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:07 AM on July 17, 2009 [2 favorites]


Two birth announcements in two newspapers. But hey, the reptilians can time travel amirite?

Seriously though, this is Obama's political master stroke. He never fails to reduce his most vehement opponents to quibbling idiots.
posted by mullingitover at 11:08 AM on July 17, 2009 [6 favorites]


So why doesn't he just produce the birth certificate?

So why don't you learn what Google is?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 11:10 AM on July 17, 2009 [20 favorites]


So why doesn't he just produce the birth certificate?

Gee, uh, I dunno.
posted by dersins at 11:10 AM on July 17, 2009 [2 favorites]


This one?

They didn't have the Arial typeface back then! And the kerning is off.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:10 AM on July 17, 2009 [12 favorites]


The birther thing is like all conspiracy theories once they achieve lift-off--it's simply beyond the reach of evidence. Obama could find the original birth certificate his parents would have been given at the time of his birth, he could find an old 8mm film of his delivery that shows the hospital he was born in, his mother, his father, and the doctor who delivered him. He could find photographs of him being brought home from the hospital, get testimony from the nursing staff etc. etc. etc. and the birthers would simply say that the extent of the evidence proved it was all a government-funded cover up.

I think about half the birther people are into it just because they know it pisses off Obama supporters, but the other half are True Believers, and at this point they wouldn't accept testimony from their own parents if it ran counter to the One True Faith. (Of course, like all other conspiracy theories, there's absolutely no essential content to the theory other than Obama not being a citizen; they're happy to believe he was born in Honolulu if they can make an argument that that wouldn't make him a "natural born citizen"--if they see themselves losing that argument they switch to the "he was born in Kenya" line etc. etc.).
posted by yoink at 11:10 AM on July 17, 2009 [8 favorites]


Blazecock Pileon, we owe Hall and Heroult our gratitude for making aluminum foil cheap.
posted by kldickson at 11:11 AM on July 17, 2009


Wear what you want to wear. Certain people may think that you look silly or juvenile, but if you honestly don't care about that kind of thing then more power to you.

Oh, Faze, and I was trying so hard to give you the benefit of the doubt and not believe it when everyone called you a troll. Boy, that's a shame.
posted by yoink at 11:11 AM on July 17, 2009 [4 favorites]


You know that South Park episode where Cartman has Scott Tenorman's parents killed and ground up into chili, then feeds the Scott the chili and laughs after telling Scott the truth about the chili?

"Yes! Yesss!! Oh, let me taste your tears, Scott! [starts licking Scott's tears off his face] Mm, your tears are so yummy and sweet...Oh, the tears of unfathomable sadness! My-ymmuy. [licks the tears off the table and off Scott's face.] Mm-yummy you guys!"

That's kind of how I feel every time I read an article about the ongoing Rupublican clusterfuck.
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:12 AM on July 17, 2009 [28 favorites]


There must be a name for the amateur typographers who come out of the woodwork when they want to invalidate a document that they find inconvenient politically. I suggest conspirolithographers.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:13 AM on July 17, 2009 [7 favorites]


"This one?"

No, this one.
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 11:14 AM on July 17, 2009 [63 favorites]


There must be a name for the amateur typographers who come out of the woodwork when they want to invalidate a document that they find inconvenient politically.

Ummm.... they're called "bloggers."
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 11:15 AM on July 17, 2009 [4 favorites]


I wish we were actually allowed to called Obama B'Rock The Islamic Shock, because that's just about the most awesome thing ever.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:15 AM on July 17, 2009 [7 favorites]


Seriously though, this is Obama's political master stroke. He never fails to reduce his most vehement opponents to quibbling idiots.

This, exactly.

Even my highly-educated, usually-articulate, Republican father-in-law is reduced to bumbling and stuttering when asked to defend/explain the Obama-related rightwing talking points.
posted by amyms at 11:17 AM on July 17, 2009 [2 favorites]


There must be a name for the amateur typographers who come out of the woodwork when they want to invalidate a document that they find inconvenient politically

I always liked helvetikooks or dingbats.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:18 AM on July 17, 2009 [29 favorites]


I'm going to retract my suggestion and put my vote in for dingbats. Short, sharp, elegant.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:19 AM on July 17, 2009 [7 favorites]


There must be a name for the amateur typographers who come out of the woodwork when they want to invalidate a document that they find inconvenient politically. I suggest conspirolithographers.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:13 AM on July 17


In all fairness, that one T.A.N.G. document was fake as hell and I, ardent leftist and Bush-hater extraordinaire, said that it was fake as hell loudly and often to anyone who would listen.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:21 AM on July 17, 2009 [1 favorite]


As someone already alluded to I honestly think this birther crap is just thinly disguised racism. Bush Jr, Cheney,Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dole, Bush Sr, Dukakis, Reagan, Mondale, Ferraro, Carter, Ford etc etc.. they all look the same, same skin tone (basically at least). Any one of the mothers of these folks could have been out of the country for the birth (which is essentially the claim made), but the inherent whiteness of them puts them above any shrill cry for "long-form-vault-copy-just-show-us-damn-it [eyes averted]. This is Pat Buchanan, "whites-are-inherently-better-for-government, those-blacks-can-sure-run-though-can't-they?" writ large.

Yeah, nothing will appease them. For nearly this reason alone I hope Obama wins 2012 with 400 EVs.
posted by edgeways at 11:22 AM on July 17, 2009 [3 favorites]




Astro Zombie: "There is no birther movement. There is, however, a "no black man will ever be my president" movement, but they can't call themselves that, so they have concocted a conspiracy to sound less crazy.."

This. They just can't wrap their minds around the fact that Barack Fucking Hussein Obama was actually elected president.
posted by octothorpe at 11:23 AM on July 17, 2009 [2 favorites]


What kind of dumbshit actually thinks Obama doesn't have a birth certificate? These republicans or right wingers whatever are seriously losing their minds. They're delusional. At least left wing conspiracy theories are usually based on some shred of truth.
That idiot who refused to be deployed yo Afghanistan because he thinks Obama has no birth certificate and therefore has no business being the president? Hey jackass,..The war was started by your man Bush anyway!Does that make you feel better about going off to "defend freedom"?

I guess that's what happens when your political party panders to the lowest common denominator- they become your fan base. To bad for "real" conservatives , your party is a sorry joke.
posted by Liquidwolf at 11:23 AM on July 17, 2009


Yes, dingbats is excellent.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 11:24 AM on July 17, 2009 [1 favorite]


Also I am deeply bummed that mcrdmII:JO beat me to posting the "B-Rock the Islamic Shock" parody.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:26 AM on July 17, 2009


There must be a name for the amateur typographers who come out of the woodwork when they want to invalidate a document that they find inconvenient politically.

How about psychofontic or schizofontic?
posted by amyms at 11:27 AM on July 17, 2009


Oooh I like Blazecock's suggestions too.
posted by amyms at 11:28 AM on July 17, 2009


One more big blow and the Republican Party is gone. Like...Sarah Palin running as an 'independent' in 2012. That'd suck all the socially conservative racists and gay-haters into the Palin party, leaving the Republican Party with people too conservative to vote for Obama but not conservative enough (or crazy enough) to be a Palinite. No plurality in any election from either of those groups.
posted by jamstigator at 11:29 AM on July 17, 2009 [1 favorite]




The thing about the T.A.N.G. document is that even if the document was falsified, the contents of it were consistent with what would have been in such a document. The shame of it is that this one probably forged document allowed the right wingers to dismiss every single piece of evidence -- and it was a mountain of evidence -- that there are significant questions about George W. Bush's term of service in the Texas Air National Guard.

This is why this sort of dingbat typography analysis has become so popular -- because it is so politically useful. Not because a single forged document is so terribly important. We don't base our judgements about history based on one single piece evidence, ever, but instead on a preponderance of evidence, but through the sort of neat trick that Republicans used when discrediting the T.A.N.G. document, a preponderance can be tossed out when a single element is shown to be false. It's a trick also favored by Holocaust deniers, by the way.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:31 AM on July 17, 2009 [6 favorites]


Having said that evidence is irrelevant, there's some part of me that is still amazed that the birthers aren't struck by the fact that in the whole state of Hawaii there is not a single conservative debunker who has the stones to go and order a copy of this mythical "long form birth certificate," put it up on the web and say "see, THIS, is the kind of certificate we need to see!!!!"

I mean, it's not as if it takes more than five minutes on Google to find out that Hawaii no longer issues "long form" birth certificates--or to find out that the only form you can fill out and submit for a birth certificate in Hawaii (or "Certificate of Live Birth" to use their terminology) offers no option for "long form" or "short form." And yet this whole, bizarre thing maunders on.
posted by yoink at 11:32 AM on July 17, 2009 [3 favorites]


The first and third links are tired, uninteresting, and unworthy of discussion. The second link, though, the one about The American Conservative Union, a large and influential think tank, trying to blackmail FedEx into paying them $3 million in order to get them to support them on a position and then turning around and endorsing a pro-union position when FedEx declined to pay up, now that's interesting. I think that little story says more about the present state of "conservatism" in the United States than yet more "OMG Racism!" stories.
posted by dortmunder at 11:34 AM on July 17, 2009 [10 favorites]


How about psychofontic or schizofontic?

I really like psychofont. This lends the condition some clinical legitimacy.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:34 AM on July 17, 2009


One more big blow and the Republican Party is gone. Like...Sarah Palin running as an 'independent' in 2012.

Nice idea, but it won't happen. Palin has just not played her cards well enough. If she showed signs of being a threat to the GOP they'd crush her like a bug.
posted by yoink at 11:34 AM on July 17, 2009


One of my more unsavory habits is watching Sean Hannity's TV show. A couple times recently, he's mentioned the army reservist who refused to deploy because he claims Obama can not legally be president and I found Hannity's treatment to be quite interesting.

The two times it came up that I saw, he was basically reduced to telling the story and saying "hmm, interesting" while waggling his eyebrows. One the one hand, it's too obviously crazy for anyone with even as much respectability as Sean Hannity(basically none) to treat as a serious issue. On the other hand, he can't give up any chance to attack the other side, no matter how ridiculous the claim. I don't see racism in it, as much as I see a complete loss of perspective as soon as political issues are brought up.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 11:36 AM on July 17, 2009 [1 favorite]




So...since I cannot get my "original" 1958 birth certificate, and can only get new replacements from the health dept., I can't ever be President? Wow. That's severe.
posted by Thorzdad at 11:38 AM on July 17, 2009 [2 favorites]


After seeing today's George Will article about fedex, ups, and the RLA vs NLRA I assumed that someone was paying. Whether shipping company X should be subject to labor laws A or labor laws B is such a minute issue that I can't buy it being considered interesting to the general public.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 11:39 AM on July 17, 2009 [1 favorite]


So...since I cannot get my "original" 1958 birth certificate, and can only get new replacements from the health dept., I can't ever be President? Wow. That's severe.

That's right. They should have some sort of PSA. "Mothers! Do you know where your children's original birth certificates are? Did you lose them that time you carelessly let your house burn down? Don't you know that they now have no hope of ever growing up to be president? Buy a flood-proof, fire-proof, silverfish-proof safe now and keep your children's hopes of Presidential office alive!"
posted by yoink at 11:47 AM on July 17, 2009 [2 favorites]


Every day more hypocrisy is revealed about these so-called "family values" crusaders.

In the state of Washington, we have Rep. Matt Shea (R-WA) and Larry Stickney trying to push Referendum 71 on us, which does exactly what we feared would happen after DOMA: the "family values" people would start going after gay and lesbian families by removing legal protections that already exist.

It's not enough, now, to take away marriage: these bigots want to take away domestic partnership where it exists.

Interestingly, however, for someone who claims the gays are destroying cultural values, Larry Stickney has had three marriages and two divorces. He beat up one of his three wives so badly he ruptured her eardrum and nearly broke her jaw, for which she had to get a restraining order.

Matt Shea himself divorced not too long after getting married. His ex had to file restraining and protection orders, after a long pattern of physical and emotional abuse. In one instance, he grabbed her arm and threw her at a car.

The only thing that right-wing "family values" crusaders have shown is a propensity to be the lowest fucking scum on the earth.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:48 AM on July 17, 2009 [18 favorites]


The more reading I do in American history the more I'm convinced that the Republican Party has essentially reverted to the its American nativist roots, the "Know Nothings" who merged with the nascent Republican party before the election of 1860. Substitute Catholic Mexicans for Irish Catholics, drug prohibition for alcohol, and keep the racism, jingoism, tendency towards conspiracy (and a belief in same) and general xenophobia, and its almost a perfect match.
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 11:53 AM on July 17, 2009 [18 favorites]


But without the fashion sense of Bill the Butcher.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:55 AM on July 17, 2009 [7 favorites]


I think some people are seriously overestimating the extent to which the GOP will stay on the ropes, although I would love to see them descend as rapidly into the gibbering lunatic fringe as they seem to be doing at the moment.

Triumphalism is fun and exhilarating and exciting and everything, but we last saw this movie on the flip side in 2004, when commentators were predicting a permanent and unshakable Republican majority. Nothing is written in stone, and anything can happen between now and November 2010.
posted by blucevalo at 11:58 AM on July 17, 2009 [9 favorites]


It might be a bit too late now, but I think it'd be great if a bunch of different countries offered Obama "honorary birth certificates," just like universities offer "honorary degrees." Then when asked, "where's the birth certificate?" the answer would be, "Which one? I was born in Okinawa, London, Berlin, oh, and Hawaii too."
posted by explosion at 12:04 PM on July 17, 2009


Even my highly-educated, usually-articulate, Republican father-in-law is reduced to bumbling and stuttering when asked to defend/explain the Obama-related rightwing talking points.

the funny thing about Obama is that it's not hard to take him apart. I, a liberal who actually volunteered for him, can do a pretty good job of it- the flagrant hypocrisy on gay rights, civbil liberties, war, etc.,etc, etc. And I don't think the "vapid celebrity" stuff is really THAT far off at this point.

The problem is to be able to do this you have be anti-war and care about gay rights and cilvil liberties. So republicans are kind of S.O.L.
posted by drjimmy11 at 12:04 PM on July 17, 2009 [13 favorites]


Hey look what we are talking about instead of important things like universal health care. Listen to me - pay no attention to the talking head puppets like Limbaugh, Bachmann, Hannity etc - they only exist to distract you away from progress that will cut into their corporate overlord's profits. Call them out on that, don't engage in debate distraction - no matter how many birth certificates you can produce they win the game by changing the playing field - which is all these made up conspiracies were intended for in the first place.
posted by any major dude at 12:04 PM on July 17, 2009 [2 favorites]


Oh Faze, and I was trying so hard to give you the benefit of the doubt...

Honest, I never heard of this whole birth certificate thing until I read an article about the guy who refused to go to Afghanistan about it. The MSM article made it seem as if there actually was no birth certificate. So who, I thought, am I to doubt the MSM? That said, the American Conservative Union blackmail article is really interesting, I mean, them acting like Chicago Democrats, and all.
posted by Faze at 12:05 PM on July 17, 2009


I mean, them acting like Chicago Democrats, and all.

That's not entirely fair. You're descriving the behavior of, at most, a few thousand Chicago Democrats.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:07 PM on July 17, 2009 [2 favorites]


Faze is set to stunned.
posted by srboisvert at 12:09 PM on July 17, 2009 [11 favorites]


I'm gonna sit back and drink a beer from the rooftops.

We will drink beer from the rooftops! We will drink beer from the fields and streets! We shall drink beer from the hills!
posted by grobstein at 12:09 PM on July 17, 2009 [3 favorites]


I think some people are seriously overestimating the extent to which the GOP will stay on the ropes...

Exactly. And one of the elephants in the room here, at least politically, is the series of financial-institution bailouts, which may have been started under Bush, but which have continued apace under Obama. There is already a significant undercurrent of anger about this; for example that YouTube guy who rants about these things in his cabin while beating up various electronics. I mean, obviously that particular guy is a loon, but he gets lots of favorites and they're not all ironic, you know?

The administration keeps predicting an economic recovery in the last quarter of this year, and the democrats had damn well better hope it rolls around at least before the 2010 elections, or there's a serious chance they could get their ass handed to them. With 10-11% unemployment, everyone is going to know someone who's affected, and when the republicans point out that the feds are giving away a TRILLION dollars to the Wall Street fat cats while regular schmoes are going broke... well, that's going to have an impact.

I would not get too confident at all in a long-term democratic majority.
posted by rkent at 12:10 PM on July 17, 2009


There is already a significant undercurrent of anger about this; for example that YouTube guy who rants about these things in his cabin while beating up various electronics.

This I've got to see. Do you know where to find it?
posted by blucevalo at 12:14 PM on July 17, 2009


I don't know if anyone mentioned this, but I enjoyed the fact that, in the letter to FedEx, the ACU offered to send out mailers to its activists. THROUGH THE USPS!

'Within 72 hours of an agreement on the whole plan we can have the data sets delivered and the first round of email ready for delivery. Within 7 days the mail can be in the USPS system and the phone call delivered.'

If your gonna try and make FedEx pay to play, at least have the common courtesy to use the service.
posted by Mach5 at 12:15 PM on July 17, 2009 [5 favorites]


So who, I thought, am I to doubt the MSM?

I find it very difficult to believe that you actually thought this, whatever your position on Obama's citizenship status.
posted by blucevalo at 12:17 PM on July 17, 2009


Bora Horza's got it. It's interesting how up to a certain point they were the "progressive" party, opposed to the ingrained and corrupt Democrats; I wonder what would've happened had they resisted the blandishments of Know-Nothingism and the corruption under Grant. Too bad we can't trade today's Republicans with the 1856 variety.
posted by jtron at 12:23 PM on July 17, 2009


Even my highly-educated, usually-articulate, Republican father-in-law is reduced to bumbling and stuttering when asked to defend/explain the Obama-related rightwing talking points.

I can trump that. My Republican parents were reduced to actually voting for the guy!
posted by lalex at 12:28 PM on July 17, 2009 [5 favorites]


I would not get too confident at all in a long-term democratic majority.

I honestly don't know a single Democrat who thinks the majority will last more than one or two elections (including the mid-terms.) They're Democrats, afterall.

The current state of Republican nuttery certainly allows Dems to engage in a bit of wistful dreaming, but I really don't think anyone believes in this being anything more than one of the best rest-stops on the highway.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:31 PM on July 17, 2009 [2 favorites]


> With 10-11% unemployment, everyone is going to know someone who's affected, and when the republicans point out that the feds are giving away a TRILLION dollars to the Wall Street fat cats while regular schmoes are going broke... well, that's going to have an impact.

So voters will have to, as Thomas Frank pointed out in What's The Matter With Kansas?, go back to voting Republican in order to stick it to Wall Street...and the circle of democracy will be complete.
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:36 PM on July 17, 2009 [1 favorite]


They didn't have the Arial typeface back then! And the kerning is off.

AIEEEE! The kerning. . . the kerning. . . .
posted by rdone at 12:38 PM on July 17, 2009 [1 favorite]


What's The Matter With Kansas?

Moar liek What's The Matter With The United States, amirite?
posted by kldickson at 12:41 PM on July 17, 2009


I don't think the internecine GOP fratricidal bloodletting is done yet, folks. It's going to be a real treat watching them cut each other to pieces in the run up to the next midterm elections.

Official Xoebe predictions:
1. 2010 Midterms will be a massive clusterfuck for the Republicans. They are too hell bent on eating each other to notice anything else. Democrats would pretty much have to completely implode for Republicans to see any gains.

2. Republicans will have their act together better, but not completely together, for the 2012 elections, and will pose a credible threat to the Democrats. At this point the Democrats will have to show some real progress in order not to lose seats. Regardless of which Republican runs for President, Obama will win, unless he has really screwed the pooch on a major issue - and he won't do that.

After that, the Democrats will really have to organize much better than they have in the last twenty years. 2012 will be the final hurdle for the up and coming generation of New Republicans, and we will see more more moderate Republicans. Democrat misorganization, failure to establish a coherent message will be a major problem for them.

Democrats need to give up certain hot button issues and rethink their ideology. They are still clinging to the mid-20th century concept of what a liberal is. While we will always have to continue to fight for civil rights, fairness, and justice, there has been real progress on those issues in the last 50 years. Democrats need to think about what the next 50 years is going to bring, and to obtain consensus from the voting population.

It's not enough to be the leaders on green issues, the Democrats need solutions that will not alienate businesses, regardless of whether or not we are doing enough for the environment or not. If they reach too far, the Republicans will be in the drivers seat in 2016, and all will be lost - unless the new crop of moderate Republicans has finally and thoroughly castrated the rabid right wing in their own party.
posted by Xoebe at 12:42 PM on July 17, 2009 [1 favorite]


the basic problem for the republicans since clinton is that the democratic party has aggressively courted the Republican's real base: Wall Street.

Without Wall Street, what is the Republican party?
posted by geos at 12:46 PM on July 17, 2009 [1 favorite]


Xoebe, which hot button issues?
posted by kldickson at 12:48 PM on July 17, 2009


Because the "Birther" movement's claims are so pointlessly absurd, from this point forward I'm going to assume that what they are actually objecting to is the fact that Obama was, in fact, birthed and not hatched.

Clearly they can't trust anyone in the presidency that doesn't have scales under his fake human exterior.

If you are gonna be a crackpot, own that shit.
posted by quin at 12:51 PM on July 17, 2009 [2 favorites]


It's interesting how up to a certain point they were the "progressive" party...

Bill Kristol And Dennis Miller Think That Conservatives Should ‘Plant A Flag On The Phrase Progressive’.
posted by ericb at 12:53 PM on July 17, 2009


One more big blow and the Republican Party is gone.

Nice idea, but it won't happen.


Respectfully - not a nice idea. You guys only have two substantial parties to begin with, so unlike a lot of other countries the election pickings are slim. Without at least one powerful opponent to keep Democrats on their toes, the party will devolve into a regime, or at least migrate from a wading pool to a cesspool of corruption. Monopoly breeds abuse. That's what democracy's all about, right?
posted by CynicalKnight at 12:54 PM on July 17, 2009 [1 favorite]


Without Wall Street, what is the Republican party?

Alabama with a better tailor.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 12:57 PM on July 17, 2009 [11 favorites]


Some Democracts are far too smug about the party's resurgence. The adults in the GOP will have many great issues come 2010, including the economy, the budget deficit, the way money was doled out to Wall Street, plus all the normal scare tactics. Much of the Democratic success in the last election was disgust with W and with the campaign being run by McCain. Without those bogeymen and without Obama's star power in the election (in terms of being on the ballot) it will be a tough year for the Democrats and they will likely lose many seats in both houses. The best thing the Democrats have going for them is all this wingnuttery stuff like the birthers. The GOP isn't making too many friends with Latinos this week either.
posted by caddis at 1:02 PM on July 17, 2009


I agree that we shouldn't mistake the internal collapse of th Republican party for a rise of the Democratic Party. In baseball, you might win if the other team sponatenously is sucked into a black hold of their own making, but that doesn't make you babe Ruth.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:08 PM on July 17, 2009 [5 favorites]


the way money was doled out to Wall Street

You mean, the way it was doled out under TARP? I.e., before Obama was sworn in as President? That policy driven by a Republican President and his administration is going to be a winner for the Republicans?

You may well be right, of course, but I do get pissed off at how everybody talks about TARP as if it were Obama's initiative.
posted by yoink at 1:22 PM on July 17, 2009 [3 favorites]


Well, since you ask, the hot button issue that comes to my mind first is gun control. Let's not discuss gun control.

I see it as an issue that doesn't win Democrats many votes. Most Democrat voters vote Democratic for a variety of other more important reasons. The threat of gun control is one that can galvanize conservatives and get them out to vote. John Kerry was smart enough to recognize that, but ineptly pandered to the center-right with that foolishly contrived photo of him hunting just before the election.

I strongly believe that the gay marriage issue that developed in 2003-2004 was a significant factor in getting conservatives out to vote and kept Bush in office for a second term. I think the climate has changed on gay marriage this year; that being said, the issue is a volatile one - not in the sense that it gets people riled up, but in the sense that it is highly polarized with nearly equal weights of political power (voters, money), so it doesn't take much to push the "climate" one way or the other. Prop 8 in California was a direct result of that; again, there is a reaction to Prop 8 that has galvanized the pro gay marriage into action, and they/we have had some successes elsewhere recently.

I use gay marriage as an example - I don't think that's an issue the Dems should drop now. But in 2004 it didn't help them.
posted by Xoebe at 1:23 PM on July 17, 2009


"One more big blow and the Republican Party is gone. Like...Sarah Palin running as an 'independent' in 2012."

One more big blow and the Republican Party is gone. Like… Teddy Roosevelt running as a "Bull Moose" in 1912.
posted by klangklangston at 1:26 PM on July 17, 2009 [2 favorites]


CynicalKnight: "One more big blow and the Republican Party is gone.

Nice idea, but it won't happen.


Respectfully - not a nice idea. You guys only have two substantial parties to begin with, so unlike a lot of other countries the election pickings are slim.
"

On the contrary, the complete destruction of one party is one of the best things that could happen to the U.S. There won't be an opposition party for long, and it may turn out to be left of the Democrats, that is to say, truly liberal. More importantly, in the confusion and groundswell attendant with the formation of the new party, there would be a slim chance we could get the support off the ground to change to a different form of election to pull us away from a two party system, which is at the root of a lot of these problems.
posted by JHarris at 1:27 PM on July 17, 2009 [5 favorites]


Er, that should say, we wouldn't be without an opposition party for long. Dammit.
posted by JHarris at 1:27 PM on July 17, 2009


I use gay marriage as an example - I don't think that's an issue the Dems should drop now. But in 2004 it didn't help them.

If they don't drop it, and since you say it's still "volatile," then what should the Democrats do with it? Ignore it? Hope it goes away?
posted by blucevalo at 1:28 PM on July 17, 2009


There won't be an opposition party for long, and it may turn out to be left of the Democrats, that is to say, truly liberal.

In the United States? Are you serious?
posted by blucevalo at 1:30 PM on July 17, 2009


I ran into one of my right-wing co-workers at a local big box store. He was there for bullets, and hoping he was not too late.

Apparently, the bullets arrive every Tuesday, and sell out before the end of the day.

I asked him (I get along with him fine) if there is any objective evidence that Obama is going to come for his guns any time soon, and he said, no, not really. But he got his bullets, none-the-less.

Multiply this by thousands, and, yeah, it's gotten bad weird.
posted by Danf at 1:32 PM on July 17, 2009 [7 favorites]


Out of Iraq? Nope.

Out of Afghanistan? Nope.

End of the recession? Nope.

Decrease unemployment? Nope.

Grow manufacturing jobs? Nope.

End huge deficit spending? Nope.

Stop huge government bailouts? Nope.

Decrease cost of energy? Nope.

End "Don't ask don't tell"? Nope.

Fix problems with Iran, NK and peace in the Middle East? Nope, nope and nope.

Fix healthcare in a way that doesn't totally irritate the bulk of Americans? TBD (But forcing the working poor to spend $50-$80 a month, per individual, on government health insurance is a pretty good way to really upset people.)

Fix immigration in a way that doesn't totally irritate the fastest growing demographic in America? Not looking so good.

As of the last election... we have nobody to blame but ourselves if there isn't progress on the above issues. We laugh and point at the Republican's misfortunes, but at the end of the day - we hold all the marbles and we will be held accountable.

The next few elections are going to be referendums on our party and our accomplishments. Let's not get too proud of ourselves just yet - we haven't really done much.
posted by LakesideOrion at 1:40 PM on July 17, 2009 [3 favorites]


On the contrary, the complete destruction of one party is one of the best things that could happen to the U.S. There won't be an opposition party for long, and it may turn out to be left of the Democrats,

I'd love to see this; more specifically I want to see the current Republican party come crashing and burning into the ground, taking with it the vitriol, bile-filled, acrimonious talking points that is there standard communicative style.

In the vacuum that followed I'd like to see the remaining somewhat sane right-wing centrists realize that there is a ready made party waiting for them in the Democrats and a new actually leftist-center party to rise up to balance it out.

The only one that loses in this scenario are the most vocal of the hard-right. And I'm great with that, because to a person, they are scumbags who have done everything possible to fuck this country over for their own personal gain.
posted by quin at 1:57 PM on July 17, 2009 [2 favorites]


After seeing today's George Will article about fedex, ups, and the RLA vs NLRA I assumed that someone was paying...

You're way ahead of me; I saw that and was just profoundly confused as to why that would be a topic for a column.
posted by yarrow at 2:07 PM on July 17, 2009


Huh. Before reading that link, I would have bet dollars to donuts that "birther" was a new-fangled label for anti-abortion activists.
posted by the littlest brussels sprout at 2:27 PM on July 17, 2009 [2 favorites]


In the vacuum that followed I'd like to see the remaining somewhat sane right-wing centrists realize that there is a ready made party waiting for them in the Democrats and a new actually leftist-center party to rise up to balance it out.

Again I ask, in the United States?
posted by blucevalo at 2:29 PM on July 17, 2009


Unrealistically expect Obama to turn around eight years of Bush's maladministration in six months? You betcha!

Criticize Obama for not doing things that he did not say he'd do? Boy howdy! (He said repeatedly during the campaign that he would increase troop levels in Afghanistan. He said the combat mission in Iraq ends August 31, 2010, and all US forces would be out of Iraq by December 31, 2011, which is what the Iraqi government and Bush administration agreed to.)
posted by kirkaracha at 2:39 PM on July 17, 2009 [7 favorites]


The next few elections are going to be referendums on our party and our accomplishments.

Who is in this "our" of which you speak? I've been a registered independent since I turned 18, have voted for a variety of candidates, campaigned for a couple, but would never consider myself either Democrat or Republican. Neither party--in my lifetime--has represented a stance I can wholly agree with on just about any major issue, and when one party gets the big stance right, the solution is often stupid and counterproductive or they are out of power and can do nothing to implement a solution.

I think many Americans are like me, and I'm always puzzled when someone assumes that, if I am not a Republican, I must be a Democrat.

But I'm not looking for perfect representation for me, either. The real problem, revealed pretty clearly as work on health care reform unfolds, is that so many in Washington are bought. Our biggest problems in government in the U. S. are neither red nor blue but green, the color of money. If our elected representatives would simply place the people's interest paramount over that of any other entity, especially that of a corporation or an "industry", things would greatly improve, I think.
posted by LooseFilter at 2:41 PM on July 17, 2009 [1 favorite]


"If they don't drop it, and since you say it's still "volatile," then what should the Democrats do with it? Ignore it? Hope it goes away?"

Well, gay marriage right now is working itself out at the state level. The Democratic party doesn't need to push it. If they do push it at the Federal level, they simply need to be very careful, but I think they largely learned their lesson on that one in 2004. Of course I am not suggesting they forget their commitments on any issue, but they do need to recognize which horses are going to win in a given race. These are fluid, dynamic situations. Right now the tide has turned in the Democrats favor.

I personally believe - and I could be wrong - but I believe that gun control is the one single issue on which the Democrats will never, ever win. They should simply not ever bring it up. (That's a topic for a whole 'nother thread.) If they decide to push gun control, they will alienate some voters, and galvanize their opposition. Lose-lose.

On other issues, Democrats simply need to think practically and realistically. Any proposed solutions are going to be highly critical to the success of the Democrats, and these proposed solutions are not likely to be "ideologically pure". The Republicans have the same problem as well, and these days they are tearing themselves apart over ideological purity. Many influential figures in the GOP are saying they lost because they weren't "conservative enough". It's obviously pure stupidity to anyone looking in from the outside. Democrats are subject to the same stupidity - ideological myopia. Not all of them suffer from this, but it's just something they need to be aware of.

Paradoxically, Democratic tendencies to compromise have also lost issues for them. Where Republicans have tended to be stubborn, stay-on-message-at-any-cost, Democrats are all over the map on many issues. It's in the nature of a big tent party to be that way, but it's harder to organize. In order for Democrats to continue having success, they really need to succeed on their own, and not simply be the default party when the other party screws up. They haven't shown a whole lot of leadership since the last mid term election, IMO. The next two to four years are critical.

One example that seems to contradict what I am saying is the health care issue. If the Dems water down their proposals, they are going to fail. When there are systemic, institutional failures, the systems need to replaced. It's often easier, cheaper, and more effective to design a new system from the ground up than it is to patch an existing system, especially a mountain of spaghetti that is our current system. That's one where I think they will be surprised at how easy it is to implement, but they are going to have to commit to it, and weather the slings and arrows that come from the Right. (another topic for another thread)

The problem with elections is that people always want to see strong, decisive leaders with clear vision. Unfortunately, this can be polarizing, and earn a candidate as much enmity as it does goodwill. If Democrats want to evoke a sense of strong leadership, they need to choose positions where they can take strong positions and garner votes. Conversely, they need to avoid taking strong positions on issues that will lose them votes.

Bill Clinton was masterful at navigating this kind of electoral minefield. Obama is not the politico that Clinton was, but his strength lies in his clear vision. He also doesn't take strong positions on vote losing issues, but he strongly implies sympathy for his voter base in his approach. He is a true believer, but he is also pragmatic. There is a palpable sense of disappointment in some Democratic/liberal/progressive circles, because Obama has not turned out to be the liberal they thought he was. What the ideologs need to understand is that Obama won an election because he was able to appeal to the center right and not scare off voters the way Kerry did.
posted by Xoebe at 2:46 PM on July 17, 2009 [1 favorite]


Some Democracts are far too smug about the party's resurgence. The adults in the GOP will have many great issues come 2010, including the economy, the budget deficit, the way money was doled out to Wall Street, plus all the normal scare tactics

Which adults in the GOP? Seriously. Are there any that aren't crazed neo-cons and/or young-earth religious nuts and/or morally compromised hypocrites? Please tell me who these intelligent mature Republican leaders are 'cause I'm not seeing any. Palin? Huckabee? Gingrich?

And then, tell me what the GOP would propose to do about the economy, deficits, heathcare etc? Tax cuts? Deregulation? Privatization? More military spending? We've tried all that dumb shit for the last thirty years and they've gotten us to where we are now. If you really think that the GOP is going to come back, I'd like to know what great new ideas that they have to fix things; I haven't heard a single proposal from them that wasn't the same old Reaganist nonsense that they've been hawking for a generation.
posted by octothorpe at 2:47 PM on July 17, 2009 [1 favorite]


Xoebe, add to that that there are some Democrats that actually aren't fanatically pro-gun control. I could care less if someone owns a gun, provided they have the sanity to not use it unless they need to and to not go around murdering people.
posted by kldickson at 3:02 PM on July 17, 2009 [2 favorites]


There are about 4 total adults in the national GOP, and none of them hold positions of power.

The economy is starting to show some signs of recovery, the unemployment part is going to be the biggest problem in that area, but there is a lot of the stimulus left to be doled out for infrastructure projects, the deficit, while large, is going to be a hard sell to get elected on. In many ways it is too abstract and the only way it can be marketed is though vague fear tactics. And Wall street? Yeah the GOP wants to act like it actually cares about wall street payouts... heh.
posted by edgeways at 3:08 PM on July 17, 2009


Without those bogeymen and without Obama's star power in the election (in terms of being on the ballot) [2010] will be a tough year for the Democrats and they will likely lose many seats in both houses.

Of 538's top fifteen most-likely-to-flip Senate seats, they're an even split right now; four of the top five are Republican. Polling this far out is of course an absolute crapshoot, but e-v.com has only one Democratic seat competitive versus five or six Republican ones. The Dems have a few weak incumbents but the Reps have a stack of open seats. If anything, the Democrats stand to gain seats in the Senate in 2010.*

*predictions void in case of cosmic irony, Large Hadron Collider or two years' worth of events, y'know, happening. but still.
posted by aihal at 3:13 PM on July 17, 2009 [1 favorite]


On the contrary, the complete destruction of one party is one of the best things that could happen to the U.S. There won't be an opposition party for long, and it may turn out to be left of the Democrats, that is to say, truly liberal.

nice fantasy. we have a political culture where there is a center-right party, the democrats, pursuing essentially status-quo policies and a far-right, increasingly populist party, the party of Palin and Huckabee.

the democratic party, as it stands today, assiduously avoids the politics of popular appeal, i.e. populist politics. it prefers to make policy on the basis of elite consensus and 'expert' opinion.
posted by geos at 3:18 PM on July 17, 2009


Triumphalism is fun and exhilarating and exciting and everything, but we last saw this movie on the flip side in 2004, when commentators were predicting a permanent and unshakable Republican majority.

Amen.

I'd go on just a bit. As Ted Lowi says in The End of the Republican Era:

"Marx put it very well in his observation that 'capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of nature, its own negation.' But Marx was much too modest. He should have uuniversalized his proposition, because all systems, including his own, are similarly flawed."

and

"Power corrupts, but it tends to corrupt intellect earlier than character and in predictable ways. Any belief system, when it becomes a theory of government, will self-destruct, unless its adherents recognize the limits of its applicability."

These are predictable outcomes if things go "right" for you when you're in power, that is, if you're able to simply marginalize the opposition and enact your agenda largely as you've conceived it. This is to say nothing of what opportunities fate might give your opposition and how good at maneuvering they are.

Lots of reasons to appreciate the fall of a Republican Party that had apparently long ago abandoned consideration of these things, the biggest one being that they simply became bad at governing. Anything other than brief celebration and indulging of schaedenfreude strikes me as being overzealous and under-sober about larger principles and the temporal nature of power.
posted by weston at 3:24 PM on July 17, 2009 [2 favorites]


Doesn't matter much...

Most of the Conservatives voted for Obama anyway.
posted by markkraft at 3:59 PM on July 17, 2009


David Brooks has his inner thigh fondled by a Republican Senator at a dinner party. Is this real or political slash fiction?
posted by 445supermag at 4:00 PM on July 17, 2009


Camping a couple days back there was a wind that was knocking all the nuts from the trees. I interpreted that as a (good) sign.
posted by JoeXIII007 at 4:03 PM on July 17, 2009


As far as we're coming up with names for crazy conspiracy types, may I suggest Fabric-ators for those that insist that Obama is a Muslin?
posted by qvantamon at 4:05 PM on July 17, 2009


This "party of Lincoln" guff is a dirty lie. Lincoln would fucking weep if he saw what "his" party had become. He'd renounce it in a second. Everytime someone says "party of Lincoln" they want to tell you a story of what life was like back when dinosaurs roamed the planet, before man walked upright, the Times Before, it isn't even history at this point, it's fucking myth. You've seen the photo of the Union soldiers with the pterodactyl? That's actually how long it has been since the Republican party has been anything other than stone cold haters.
posted by Peztopiary at 4:15 PM on July 17, 2009 [1 favorite]


Who cares where he was born????? The man is a citizen, period, and all this is just ten tons of talk on a two ounce subject. I'd rather argue about his policies than his nativity.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 4:18 PM on July 17, 2009 [3 favorites]


"One more big blow and the Republican Party is gone. Like...Sarah Palin running as an 'independent' in 2012."

"One more big blow and the Republican Party is gone. Like… Teddy Roosevelt running as a "Bull Moose" in 1912.
"

One more line of blow and Sarah Palin is Teddy Roosevelt shooting a moose, listening to 2112.
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 4:18 PM on July 17, 2009 [9 favorites]


David Brooks has his inner thigh fondled by a Republican Senator at a dinner party. Is this real or political slash fiction?

It's their mating ritual, best observed from a distance, and preferably with David Attenborough narrating.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:27 PM on July 17, 2009 [3 favorites]


Hey look what we are talking about instead of important things like universal health care.

yeah -- it's not like any of us here on MetaFilter can discuss more than one topic at a time...nor, can other informed Americans.
posted by ericb at 4:32 PM on July 17, 2009


Which adults in the GOP? Seriously. Are there any that aren't crazed neo-cons and/or young-earth religious nuts and/or morally compromised hypocrites? Please tell me who these intelligent mature Republican leaders are 'cause I'm not seeing any. Palin? Huckabee? Gingrich?

The loud voices are no longer the adults. That is fine. Go see the Republican Leadership Council.
posted by caddis at 5:40 PM on July 17, 2009


Came for the MetaFilter, saw the Fark Superallah, leaving satisfied.
posted by infinitewindow at 5:49 PM on July 17, 2009


As long as people send their kids to Sunday School to learn obedience to traditional authority, then we will always have a Republican party to exploit their self-loathing.
posted by Brian B. at 5:52 PM on July 17, 2009 [3 favorites]


To reiterate: I can't wait for the GOP to disappear so the Dems can be the rightwing party I refuse to vote for.
posted by DU at 6:32 PM on July 17, 2009 [4 favorites]


"David Brooks has his inner thigh fondled by a Republican Senator at a dinner party. Is this real or political slash fiction?"

On July 11th, Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy advisor to Reagan and a treasury official under Bush Sr. -- and an unlikely netfriend of mine, despite his support of Obama in the recent election -- mentioned the following in his Facebook:

"I strongly suspect that the senator who put his hand on David Brooks' thigh was Strom Thurmond. I saw Thurmond do similar sorts of things and everyone ignored it because he was so old."

*twitch*
posted by markkraft at 6:38 PM on July 17, 2009


I think I just vomited in my mouth a little.
posted by blucevalo at 6:58 PM on July 17, 2009


blucevalo: There is already a significant undercurrent of anger about this; for example that YouTube guy who rants about these things in his cabin while beating up various electronics.

This I've got to see. Do you know where to find it?


The original, & the Benny Hill version (shameless self-link).
posted by Pronoiac at 7:05 PM on July 17, 2009


I'd rather argue about his policies than his nativity.

So would a lot of people. On the other hand, a lot of other people who've gotten huge returns from arguing about anything but policy for over 21 years, since at least the days of the Willie Horton ads, would rather not. So that's the problem.
posted by blucevalo at 7:12 PM on July 17, 2009


Let's say Obama magically does produce the mythical, 47 year old, long form birth certificate. What comes after that? Do they start demanding to see the placenta?
posted by mccarty.tim at 7:59 PM on July 17, 2009


Since nobody asked me, here's my prediction for the GOP:

2010 is a wash, maybe slight gains in the House.

2012 Adult Republicans know in their coal-black hearts of hearts that Romney is their best bet, and the party continues to commit slow suicide as the fundies and the hardcore wingers shoot him in the back in favor of a certain ex-governor from Alaska. She then loses in a Mondale-esque landslide to president Barack Obama since, while the economy ain't doing fantastic, it is doing much better than it was at the end of 2008.

A boy can dream, can't he?
posted by bardic at 9:59 PM on July 17, 2009


If she showed signs of being a threat to the GOP they'd crush her like a bug.

Who would do that? Michael Steele or Mitch McConnell? Maybe Rush Limbaugh? I mean, she showed obvious signs of being a threat to the GOP in the last election. Her foaming at the mouth vitriolic is what turned off a lot of independents who might have otherwise like McCain.
posted by IvoShandor at 10:04 PM on July 17, 2009


So.. the conservatives that support this nonsense (Obama isn't an American by birth and therefore should be disqualified from becoming POTUS), I imagine they would also be against Schwarzenegger from running as well?
posted by Talanvor at 12:11 AM on July 18, 2009


I imagine they would also be against Schwarzenegger from running as well?

I suppose the main difference being that Schwarzenegger was actually born in another country. That said, I am of the opinion that the whole natural-born citizen requirement is long outdated and mostly a relic of the founders worry of a British take-over of the presidency. An amendment to the Constitution might be appropriate. And then what would the birthers quibble about? Maybe then they could just let their true motivation be known (as several commenters have pointed out).
posted by IvoShandor at 12:17 AM on July 18, 2009 [1 favorite]


Who would do that? Michael Steele or Mitch McConnell? Maybe Rush Limbaugh? I mean, she showed obvious signs of being a threat to the GOP in the last election. Her foaming at the mouth vitriolic is what turned off a lot of independents who might have otherwise like McCain.

I think you misunderstood my point. I'm not talking about her being a liability to the GOP (i.e, turning people away from the GOP because people find her unlikable as a GOP representative), I'm talking about her being a threat to the GOP (i.e., drawing a large number of GOP voters away from the party.

If you think she's a "liability" (i.e., you think she turns people off) then if she starts a third party she won't be a threat (she won't attract followers).

Now, as to the 2008 campaign--it may be true that she turned off some independents. It's also, I think, unarguably true that Palin turned out a lot more voters than McCain did. She was a polarizing figure, to be sure, and a certain strand of old-school GOP voters found her a turn-off, but there would have been no consensus at all among party leaders that she constituted a "threat" to the party (you'd have found it much easier to find people who thought of McCain as such a threat). Her problem was simply that she appealed too much to the base.

If she tries to start a third party, though, the entire GOP establishment will come down on her like a ton of bricks--and she's simply given them too much ammunition. She's a quitter, she went on a lunatic shopping spree as VP, she's not loyal etc. etc. etc. Fox news will make her a bigger punching bag than Obama.
posted by yoink at 12:30 PM on July 18, 2009 [1 favorite]


What kind of dumbshit actually thinks Obama doesn't have a birth certificate?

One of my co-workers.

He's a pretty smart guy and definitely loyal to friends and family, but he is highly paranoid about some conspiracy stuff which is utterly and demonstrably false, ridiculously so. Like this birth certificate thing. He's also coming from a far right libertarian perspective with a healthy dash of born-again postmillennialism, i.e., he also sees Obama as "the Chosen One," and a harbinger of the apocalypse.
posted by krinklyfig at 6:42 PM on July 18, 2009


but there would have been no consensus at all among party leaders that she constituted a "threat" to the party (you'd have found it much easier to find people who thought of McCain as such a threat). Her problem was simply that she appealed too much to the base.

Her real problem from the beginning is that, to use a politically incorrect cliche, she's way off the reservation. She listens to nobody, and her primary ambition is her own advancement and enrichment. She is willing to throw anyone under the bus if it benefits her. All that I've read about the election shows that the GOP wasn't really prepared for what kind of person they got with her. They did expect some gratitude and some give-and-take with campaigning efforts, and they got nothing. The general tone I got was that they realized she was a problem early on in the campaign and were trying their best to signal to her to stay far away from the center of power and to play a supporting role, and she sensed this and tried to capitalize on her popularity to do a run-around and seize the mantle of the party, as McCain was not a strong candidate.

That didn't work so well, and it established rather firmly that Palin didn't care about the party as much as her own political future. This hasn't endeared her to anyone but the most nakedly political amoral types, such as Bill Kristol, and when you stab your own supporters in the back, you can't expect them to keep supporting you unless you wield a lot of power, and she does not. She gladly gave up her remaining claim to real power, and this is right when there's a power vacuum as big as the one Nixon left. I think they don't want her, and I think some of the moderate old guard is also trying to get rid of Limbaugh and the like but are meeting some resistance, as he's very loyal and carries some real power, although it is diminishing. But they keep sending signals that the flailing idiots are on their own, and only truly supported enough to give them enough rope to hang themselves.
posted by krinklyfig at 6:57 PM on July 18, 2009


geos: nice fantasy. we have a political culture where there is a center-right party, the democrats, pursuing essentially status-quo policies and a far-right, increasingly populist party, the party of Palin and Huckabee."

I am, of course, not sure it is a fantasy. There are an increasing number of disenfranchised liberals who are sick of being ignored. Obama's win is, in many ways, a win for them, but it's becoming increasingly obvious that it wasn't enough. And a new-left party would be free to make just those kinds of populist appeals the Democrats appear to be loathe to make.
posted by JHarris at 1:06 AM on July 19, 2009


He's a pretty smart guy and definitely loyal to friends and family, but he is highly paranoid about some conspiracy stuff which is utterly and demonstrably false, ridiculously so. Like this birth certificate thing. He's also coming from a far right libertarian perspective with a healthy dash of born-again postmillennialism, i.e., he also sees Obama as "the Chosen One," and a harbinger of the apocalypse.

Smart? Perhaps, but not wise, and probably not even that smart in the end.
posted by caddis at 2:06 AM on July 19, 2009


From a comment on the guardian:

Regardless of his birthplace, Barrack Obama is not Constitutionally-eligible to be President of the United States. Neither was John McCain., either Bush, any present Clinton, nor anyone alive.

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1:
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."

The comma after "or a citizen of the United States" makes "at the time of the adoption" phrase apply to both "natural born citizen" and "or a citizen of the United States". There is not, I presume, "a natural born citizen" alive who was also alive "at the time of the adoption of this Constitution". Likewise, there is no one who was "a citizen of the United States" on July 4, 1776 who is also a living citizen in November 2008. Therefore, all chief executives, excepting Zachery Taylor (b. 1784) from John Tyler (b. 1790) onwards have not been Constitutionally-eligible. Those who were from their mother's wombs untimely ripped and those conceived by in-vitro fertilization are also Constitutionally ineligible to be POTUS.
posted by lalochezia at 4:17 PM on July 28, 2009 [1 favorite]


I don't think we need to descend into pedantry to discount the Birthers.
posted by IvoShandor at 7:04 PM on July 28, 2009


Fascinating graph of birther opinion by area of the country. The south seems to have a national monopoly on crazy.
posted by octothorpe at 9:31 AM on July 31, 2009


« Older "This is dog manure in the shape of a bicycle."...   |   Utinni! Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post