Join 3,424 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


When there's a horse out on the track that's an ugly horse.
April 11, 2010 12:45 PM   Subscribe

'GOP hopes to go from Party of No to Party of Choice.' 'Speaker after speaker at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference rallied the faithful with stinging denunciations of Obama and the Democratic majorities controlling the Senate and House of Representatives.' Palin. Gingrich. Ron Paul. Steele. And many more. 'They know how to say no to President Barack Obama. Now, can Republicans get the rest of the country to say yes to them?' 'Obama's approval ratings remain near or below 50 percent, a dangerous position for the party in power. Also, Americans may be souring on the Democratic brand little more than a year after electing a Democratic president and adding to the Democratic majorities in Congress. A new USA Today-Gallup Poll shows that just 41 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party, the lowest in the nearly two decades Gallup's asked the question. By contrast, 42 percent had a favorable opinion of Republicans.'

'So, a throw-the-bums out approach might be enough. "It is easier to get people to vote against something than for something," said Judy Smith, a Republican activist from Montgomery, Texas.'
posted by VikingSword (119 comments total) 8 users marked this as a favorite

 
Yeah, "Party of Choice*"

*except for the right to choose what to do with your uterus, ladies!
posted by emjaybee at 12:46 PM on April 11, 2010 [32 favorites]


Let's just get the LOLpublicans and LOLmericans out of the way now.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:47 PM on April 11, 2010


"Secular socialist machine," cried Newt Gingrich.

Naw, we had one of those but all the parts broke down and wore out in the '70s, and it's just rusted out in the back forty now. I've been looking on Craigslist but I haven't seen one in ages.
posted by Countess Elena at 12:49 PM on April 11, 2010 [16 favorites]


They've spent so many years teaching people that "choice" is a dirty word that means abortion, so I think "The Party of Choice" is not good branding.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:49 PM on April 11, 2010 [19 favorites]


I get confused about how Republicans in Congress are going to capitalize on a 75.5% disapproval rating and a "throw the bums out" approach. Me thinks someone hasn't really thought this through.
posted by Big_B at 12:53 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


Why do Republicans hate America?
posted by scrowdid at 12:54 PM on April 11, 2010 [3 favorites]


So, the Republicans have decided to support the public option?
posted by washburn at 12:54 PM on April 11, 2010 [7 favorites]


What? Just looking at the last big issue (healthcare), we had tons of options from the democrats. So many that people got scared and confused. The republicans made choices scary, and capitalized on it.
posted by mccarty.tim at 12:56 PM on April 11, 2010


Let's just get the LOLpublicans and LOLmericans out of the way now.

Not gonna happen. It's kinda like the Simpsons--now that Bush is out of office, maybe the jokes are a bit past their prime, but every now and then when I actually pay attention to the new material the US is still good for the odd belly laugh.

LOLAMERICANS!
posted by Kirk Grim at 12:56 PM on April 11, 2010 [2 favorites]


They've spent so many years teaching people that "choice" is a dirty word that means abortion, so I think "The Party of Choice" is not good branding.

Seriously! My first thought upon seeing that was "... they're dropping the anti-abortion position?"
posted by Solon and Thanks at 12:59 PM on April 11, 2010 [2 favorites]


The Wall St. & Party Republican vs Tea Party Republican divide is going to do them in. I'm betting on the next Republician convention ending with a walkout by TP ers .
posted by R. Mutt at 1:00 PM on April 11, 2010 [9 favorites]


I'd go "LOLdemocrats!" for how they don't get off their asses and vote in these elections, if it wasn't such a crying shame.
posted by uraniumwilly at 1:02 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


So, wait, are they actually changing any policy, or even any rhetoric, or is it just a new slogan? They might as well have just stuck with "Party of Lincoln."
posted by mccarty.tim at 1:04 PM on April 11, 2010


Well, honestly - did you expect them to get up there and say, "Oh dear Lord we're going to get our asses kicked"? It's a pep rally, for pity's sake.

On preview, I agree with R. Mutt that the internal divide between the wingnuts and the corporate zombies is going to be harder to cope with than they think.
posted by Pragmatica at 1:05 PM on April 11, 2010


It seems odd to me that you build a party out of the idea of destroying government and not making people pay for the services they use, not providing social safety net services to the poor, destroying the environment for the sake of 'creating jobs', and systematically constrict civil and privacy rights, and then you WANT to govern what you create? Are they insane or just kleptocrats?
posted by codacorolla at 1:13 PM on April 11, 2010 [11 favorites]


They might as well have just stuck with "Party of Lincoln."

I thought becoming the Party of Jefferson Davis would sort of obviate that one, but what do I know.
posted by shakespeherian at 1:20 PM on April 11, 2010 [7 favorites]


So, do the Republicans have any solutions going forward to deal with the foreign and domestic crises we have on our hands right now - besides giving tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans? No? Then it'll be interesting how this turns out in November.
posted by contessa at 1:21 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


This two-party system is ridiculous. One epic fuckup corrupt party epically fucks up in an incredibly corrupt way, and the only "choice" that can be made is to vote for the epic fuckup corrupt part!

Which has just been simmering in it's corruption, waiting for the opportunity to cash in. And then it does!

(I'm not saying "republicans and democrats are exactly the same" just that the democratic party has prove itself fairly corrupt and incompetent)
posted by delmoi at 1:22 PM on April 11, 2010 [3 favorites]


Are they insane or just kleptocrats?

Yes.
posted by hippybear at 1:25 PM on April 11, 2010 [20 favorites]


Palin. Gingrich.

Ah, the reason I feel safe. Even if the morons in the "heartland" and "Bible belt" love those asshats, I sincerely believe Palin did more to unite Democrats (against her) than Obama ever could have done otherwise.

Sigh. Sad, really - Democrats suck just a hair less than the Republicans. I so wish we had a choice of parties I could actually support, rather than just two choices with one a bit worse than the oher.
posted by pla at 1:32 PM on April 11, 2010


Also, the republicans just seem really stupid. There doesn't seem to be anyone there with any intellectual firepower, at least not at the top.

What's up with that?
posted by delmoi at 1:32 PM on April 11, 2010 [4 favorites]


This is not 1994. Trust me.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:36 PM on April 11, 2010 [2 favorites]


They know how to say no to President Barack Obama

I'm sorry, but I think Obama getting healthcare reform passed over their unanimous objection broke their backs on this one.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:38 PM on April 11, 2010 [13 favorites]


Delmoi: this is just my personal opinion, but it seems like the really smart leaders of the republican party aren't the face of the party, but operate behind the scenes. It makes sense with their identity politics of "simple good folk" versus "evil manipulating elite".
posted by codacorolla at 1:49 PM on April 11, 2010 [7 favorites]


Between the Iraq war and the economy, if the senior Democratic leaders not named Obama wasn't such a group of brainless jackasses, they'd have locked things up for a generation and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Dear Democratic leaders: Sarah Palin is still a viable political force. You suck at this politics thing.

At some point, you come to the realization that gophers will always be doing their thing, and you have to blame the gardener when there's too many gopher holes on the lawn.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:51 PM on April 11, 2010 [7 favorites]


I'm sorry, but I think Obama getting healthcare reform passed over their unanimous objection broke their backs on this one.

Yeah, having it demonstrated that they can't even stop Obama from passing HCR has to be a real blow to them.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:51 PM on April 11, 2010


You know, back in November 2008, we were losing about half a million jobs a month.Then we elected President Obama and a Democratic Congress.

Since January 2009, they’ve stabilized the banks and the economy. They passed health care reform that adds thirty million people and cuts the deficit long term while getting rid of the worst abuses of the insurance companies. It extends the solvency of Medicare for a decade. We're bringing home troops from Iraq. We're seriously addressing and working on Green energy policies after a decade of lip service. We haven't had a terrorist attack at home. We signed a nuclear arms treaty with the Russians and we are slowly making progress with other nations to reduce nuclear weapons. The DOW just scrapped 11000 on Friday. There are road repair and school repair and infrastructure projects going on in my town, paid for with stimulus money--and we're happy for it. It's been putting some people to work and training others in new skills. It isn't Nirvana, but it feels nice and it feels like we're coming out of trouble.

So lets reward the Democrats by kicking them out of government and put back in the same Know-Nothings who, for the most part, put us here.
posted by paddbear at 1:52 PM on April 11, 2010 [73 favorites]


What's missing in those approval ratings is why people don't approve.

I'd love to see how this plan would look if you asked questions like: "Would you say the X party is too far to the right, about where they should be or too far to the left?" or "Do you think the X party is not doing enough to support the President, doing what they should (in therms of checks and balances and what not) or supporting the President even when they shouldn't."

My personal hunch is that a large fraction of the people who are unhappy with the democrats are unhappy because they are too far to the right. The odds of the republicans picking that group up is pretty slim.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 1:56 PM on April 11, 2010 [12 favorites]


My personal hunch is that a large fraction of the people who are unhappy with the democrats are unhappy because they are too far to the right.

I'm unhappy with the Democrats because they took over a year to realize that they have the majority and should be able to do things. I'm going to have to wait and see whether they continue to be effective before I can make judgements on things like whether they're too far to the right or not.
posted by hippybear at 2:01 PM on April 11, 2010


uh, paddbear?

I don't think you're John Cole.
posted by uri at 2:04 PM on April 11, 2010 [28 favorites]


Since January 2009, they’ve stabilized the banks and the economy

Errrr....are you claiming this was done in the last 1/3 of the month?

Cuz Up till the 20th-someone else was in charge,

I'm unhappy with the Democrats because they took over a year to realize that they have the majority and should be able to do things.

Others think they HAVE been 'doing things' like 'stabilized the banks' via taking tax payer money and handing it over to the banks.
posted by rough ashlar at 2:05 PM on April 11, 2010


Others think they HAVE been 'doing things' like 'stabilized the banks' via taking tax payer money and handing it over to the banks.

I thought a lot of the bank money stuff happened under Bush, while the stimulus happened under Obama. Referring back to your "up until the 20th [of January] someone else was in charge"...
posted by hippybear at 2:10 PM on April 11, 2010


oh yes voting in Republicans will be the nations salvation!
HA HA HA
posted by robbyrobs at 2:11 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


I loathe Gingrich and was to a degree personally harmed by his Contract With America (in that it gutted Legal Services) but it's wrong to think that he's as stupid/ignorant as Palin. He's a smart evil dude, and thus he scares me.

Also: this, of course, is the country that elected Bush II twice. I'd not stake anything on Americans being able to sort the wheat from the bullshit.
posted by angrycat at 2:11 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


Also, the republicans just seem really stupid. There doesn't seem to be anyone there with any intellectual firepower, at least not at the top.

What's up with that?


Democrats put their smart people on the ticket, and their not so smart people in messaging.

Republicans do it the other way around.
posted by contessa at 2:12 PM on April 11, 2010 [22 favorites]


'Obama's approval ratings remain near or below 50 percent, a dangerous position for the party in power.

Really? Bush ran the country with an iron fist with an approval rating perpetually hovering around 30%. It never seemed to be a problem for him. He simply told Congress what he wanted and they complied.

In related news, I was listening to a conversation between two Republican coworkers the other day. (I live in Texas, so there are many of them.)

They were talking about the healthcare debate and the conversation went roughly as follows:

Republican 1: "You know, I'm just so fed up with these fucking liberals trying to take my money, you know? I mean, I work hard for thi-"

Republican 2: "Yeah we all work hard."

R1: "I'm working hard for this money and some fucking homo comes along and says, hey, I'm going to steal that and give it to some spics so they can come here and gangbang and shit-"

R2: "Yeah"

R1: "and break into our houses and steal our shit. You know? I mean, spics, blacks, liberals, you know what they have in common?"

R2: "Huh"

R1: "They all steal shit from hard workin' people. I mean, think about it. Isn't that what they all do?"

R2: [laughs] "Yeah"

R1: "So how am I gonna start a business and improve the economy when 80% of my income is goin to taxes so Jamal over there can get new gold teeth and an escalade, youknowwhaimsayin?"

R2: [shakes head] "Yeah"

[Note: both guys in the above conversation make in the neighborhood of $11/hr and have probably not payed taxes in years, if ever]

I guess that's when it hit me: the Republican party has successfully brainwashed working-class Americans into believing that the Status Quo must be maintained because there is a small possibility that one day, you too may become Rich Like Us. Mix in a little dose of religious exceptionalism and racial hatred, and you have the perfect antidote to even the smallest amount of social progress.
posted by Avenger at 2:16 PM on April 11, 2010 [56 favorites]


The Party of (Being Rich Means You Have A) Choice
posted by DU at 2:19 PM on April 11, 2010 [4 favorites]


For serious? How fucking dumb are Americans. Does no one remember the last decade? The one where the Republicans managed to fuck up the entire country in ways people probably didn't think were even possible.

Let's just get the LOLpublicans and LOLmericans out of the way now.

But both of those things are full of mad LOLs.
posted by chunking express at 2:26 PM on April 11, 2010


My personal hunch is that a large fraction of the people who are unhappy with the democrats are unhappy because they are too far to the right. The odds of the republicans picking that group up is pretty slim.

OTOH, I'm mad at the Ds for exactly this reason and I'm seriously tempted to vote for the Greens (or farther left) where possible. That helps the Rs to some extent.

(It also sends a message to the Ds, so I don't need to hear any talk about "throwing my vote away".)
posted by DU at 2:28 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


My personal hunch is that a large fraction of the people who are unhappy with the democrats are unhappy because they are too far to the right.

It's probably not "large" in the sense that it would constitute anything close to a plurality of people who disapprove. But even if it's 10% of the population, it's enough to invalidate the Republican thesis that they're as or more popular.

But nobody get too comfortable:

This is not 1994. Trust me.

I'd love to believe you, but then again, there's this projected loss of ~50 seats and record breaking Republican enthusiasm. Lots of time for the game to change, particularly once Republicans actually have their primaries and face Rumsfeldian considerations about the candidates they have rather than the candidates they want. But for the moment, as problematic as rabid enthusiasm might be, it's still pretty mobilizing.

Meanwhile, on the other side, you're quite familiar with the nose-holding regard in which the current crop of democrats is held as you move one or two standard deviations left of U.S. center -- and how demoralized and even offended some can get when you suggest they face their own Rumsfeldian considerations. All I have to say to my lefty friends is by all means, please do help field and support more progressive candidates, particularly in locales where they're viable, but please also remember that even a Democrat who doesn't share all your views is probably going to be a better legislator and policymaker than a Republican that marches lockstep with their caucus and doesn't distinguish between ideological and policy thinking.
posted by namespan at 2:34 PM on April 11, 2010 [3 favorites]


Avenger, we call those "Lottery Republicans." They are waiting for their big day when the cash will fall from the sky and finally they will be in charge. Until then, all they can do is make sure that they are prepared for when Baby Jesus, The Man, and the Lottery Commission simultaneously smile upon them. They've got the drapes picked out for their McMansion when all of their grubby bourgeois dreams come true. That includes a 10% tax rate for their hoped-for bracket and the glorious right not to provide health insurance for their maid.

But for now, they must dream and continue handing power to the corporations from which all good things transmit. Soon their reward must come and they will continue to hold to that, even in their most twilight years, looking over Medicare forms and wondering where their pensions went.
posted by adipocere at 2:36 PM on April 11, 2010 [28 favorites]


*except for the right to choose what to do with your uterus, ladies!

To be fair, "pro-choice" is often a misnomer as well. Pro-choice-about-abortion, maybe. But pro-choice about drugs? Pornography? Sex Work? And so on... often not so much. So the Republicans calling themselves the "Party of Choice" is dumb, but it's only slightly more dumb than the Democrats doing the same.

Note: The Democrats are better on many issues, I am not making a false equivalence. But I've started to wonder at the wisdom of applying the label "choice" solely to reproductive choice as that isn't the only or even necessarily the most important "choice" that needs to be protected.
posted by Justinian at 2:36 PM on April 11, 2010 [3 favorites]


'They know how to say no to President Barack Obama."

Too bad President Barack Obama knows how to make everyone else say yes.
posted by mattdidthat at 2:39 PM on April 11, 2010 [2 favorites]


Also, the republicans just seem really stupid. There doesn't seem to be anyone there with any intellectual firepower, at least not at the top.

What's up with that?


Here's my personal guess.

From a public choice perspective, whatever intellectual firepower there is in the Republican party is devoted to retaining and increasing power, to "winning" and hyping the base and selling the party. (Even Palin, whom we wouldn't think of as "book smart," is brilliant in some ways--her delivery of her Republican Nomination Convention speech was chillingly superb--and there are a bunch of strategists and behind-the-scenes tacticians like Karl Rove who have both "book smarts" and great instincts.) Perhaps the public faces of the party seem dumb because they've calculated that intellectual ability is irrelevant (or vastly less important than other qualities) to their base? Note: this in no way means the Republican base itself is dumb; the Republican base mostly seems less concerned about their elected officials having the "intellectual firepower" you (and I) think is necessary.

Public choice theory would also say that the Democratic party has the same general motivation--retaining and increasing power, which is achieved in part by appealing to the Democratic base. Maybe one reason for the oft-cited statistic that a large portion of people with advanced degrees vote Democrat is not (as is often claimed) because the Democratic party is the objectively smart choice, but because the Democratic party advertises itself as the right choice for intelligent people, and tries to put its officials' intellectual firepower on display, front-and-center, because it knows its base finds that appealing.

If this scenario is accurate, then it explains why we (as biased as we are) see the Republican party doing such dumb shit at times. In the most reductive terms possible, let's say the Republican base thinks it's most important to look moral and the Democratic base thinks it's most important to look intelligent. To attract the Democratic base, the Democratic party has to offer (at least) intelligent-seeming candidates who can offer cogent and intellectually acceptable proposals. The Republican party does not, or at least does not to the same extent, and so officials (like Palin) who either aren't as smart or aren't as smart in ways the Democratic base considers acceptable can still gain the Republican base's full-throated support, and the Republican party can get away with offering half-baked proposals and even passing laws that make little intellectual sense, if these laws appeal to the base in other ways (like moral uprightness). Anyway, assuming that this means the Republican party is stupid (or that the Democratic party is smart) rather than that both are self-interested and focused on appearance is a mistake.

All of this reminds me of a great David Foster Wallace quote from a piece he wrote about former conservative talk show host John Ziegler:
"It's hard to understand Fox News tags like 'Fair and Balanced,' 'No-Spin Zone,' and 'We Report, You Decide' as anything but dark jokes, ones that delight the channel's conservative audience precisely because their claims to objectivity so totally enrage liberals, whose own literal interpretation of the taglines then makes the left seem dim, humorless, and stodgy."
posted by sallybrown at 2:41 PM on April 11, 2010 [18 favorites]


I was listening to the Southern Republican Leadership Conference on C-Span the other day, and I learned that Michael Steele is a bloviating, condescending idiot. I can't find a transcript of his speech though, so I'm thinking of typing one up for people who don't want to be angry for the 25 solid minutes it takes to watch it.
posted by Nomiconic at 2:46 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


I really wish Ron Paul wasn't half crazy, because he makes so much sense the rest of the time.
posted by empath at 2:54 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


he Democrats are better on many issues, I am not making a false equivalence. But I've started to wonder at the wisdom of applying the label "choice" solely to reproductive choice as that isn't the only or even necessarily the most important "choice" that needs to be protected.

Justinian, you're a libertarian. Both the Democrats and the Republicans believe that they know how to spend your money better than you do, that the gummint, where a few people make choices for millions based on their "knowing best", is a better allocator of resources than the market, where millions of people express their preference by how they choose to spend their money. Apparently everyone on this thread knows why Republicans are anti-choice, but what about the Democrats? What if I think my money would be better spent on something I want to spend it on, rather than on Obama's endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Suppose I would rather give my money to a friend of mine who needs help, rather than the government's pet objects of charity? It goes on and on. Anything you want to hate the Republicans for, the Democrats are just as bad, only with different hairstyles.
posted by Faze at 2:54 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


'So, a throw-the-bums out approach might be enough. "It is easier to get people to vote against something than for something," said Judy Smith, a Republican activist from Montgomery, Texas.'

Because they're in denial.
posted by Brian B. at 2:54 PM on April 11, 2010


Obama's endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

Seriously? Already?
posted by empath at 2:59 PM on April 11, 2010 [29 favorites]


Where I'm from Montgomery, TX is a joke. Their successes include a new McDonald's and being on the route from Conroe to A&M. Fox's support of the Teahadists has bolstered their irrational delusions.
posted by polyhedron at 3:02 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


paddbear: "27You know, back in November 2008, we were losing about half a million jobs a month.Then we elected President Obama and a Democratic Congress.

Since January 2009, they’ve stabilized the banks and the economy. They passed health care reform that adds thirty million people and cuts the deficit long term while getting rid of the worst abuses of the insurance companies. It extends the solvency of Medicare for a decade. We're bringing home troops from Iraq. We're seriously addressing and working on Green energy policies after a decade of lip service. We haven't had a terrorist attack at home. We signed a nuclear arms treaty with the Russians and we are slowly making progress with other nations to reduce nuclear weapons. The DOW just scrapped 11000 on Friday. There are road repair and school repair and infrastructure projects going on in my town, paid for with stimulus money--and we're happy for it. It's been putting some people to work and training others in new skills. It isn't Nirvana, but it feels nice and it feels like we're coming out of trouble.

So lets reward the Democrats by kicking them out of government and put back in the same Know-Nothings who, for the most part, put us here.
"

Dude . . . plagiarism is not cool.

Flagged.
posted by anansi at 3:07 PM on April 11, 2010 [6 favorites]


Justinian, you're a libertarian.

No, I used to be but I got better.

I'm certainly a social libertarian, but I'm not an economic libertarian anymore. I don't believe the free market is the best way to provide health care, for example.
posted by Justinian at 3:15 PM on April 11, 2010 [5 favorites]


If the unrestricted free market encourages things like the housing bubble, I'd rather live under socialism.
posted by Omon Ra at 3:17 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


(It also sends a message to the Ds, so I don't need to hear any talk about "throwing my vote away".)

Whatever message you may be intending to send, the message that the Democrats receive is "those crazy leftists are really unreasonable".
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:29 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


It also sends a message to the Ds, so I don't need to hear any talk about "throwing my vote away".

Sorry, but in my opinion, you probably do, if you think the way to move the elected representation of the country to the left is to cast your vote to a small minority party with political views that will likely be seen as fringe.

The idea that your vote is a "message" — particular as your only or even your most important tool for prodding a political party — is a fundamental misunderstanding. Voting is the mechanism by which candidates are selected in general elections. That's it. Yeah, there's arguably some information in the outcomes of such elections, but it's always fuzzy at best. You'd be better off using tin cans tied between Tim Kaine's house and yours if you want to "send a message" than you would be using your vote.

You want to send a message? You want to move the Democrats to a more progressive stance? Get involved in your primaries. Go to your caucus meetings, talk things out, maybe even become a delegate. Define a platform, round up a group of like-minded people who agree with your planks, raise funds for it, form a PAC and fund candidates who will commit to supporting it. Think and talk about how to sell your positions to people who people who might think they disagree with you but have something to gain by coming to agreement with you. Hell, even just argue policy on the internet or just write a goold ol'-fashioned letter to the representatives and party officials you have. That's what you do. Your vote is the last thing you use as a "message." While remembering that every vote lost from the left makes every one of the more numerous votes in the center even more important.

tl;dr: Use your vote to select candidates. Use the rest of the political process to send a message.
posted by namespan at 3:31 PM on April 11, 2010 [124 favorites]


"It's hard to understand Fox News tags like 'Fair and Balanced,' 'No-Spin Zone,' and 'We Report, You Decide' as anything but dark jokes, ones that delight the channel's conservative audience precisely because their claims to objectivity so totally enrage liberals, whose own literal interpretation of the taglines then makes the left seem dim, humorless, and stodgy."

I know dozens of Republicans who take all of those things literally, just like their scriptures, and it makes sense from their world-denial point of view. Their operating premise is that the media is a liberal conspiracy, so "fair and balanced" and "we report, you decide" make perfect themes as the network communicates this idea critically. At the same time their packaging the notion that their viewers are something more than religious wanderers with their heads in the sand, but instead are independent weightlifters of the evidence, and of course not those brainwashed masses they imagine are listening to the intellectualized media.
posted by Brian B. at 3:33 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


tl;dr: Use your vote to select candidates. Use the rest of the political process to send a message.

I wish I could favorite this harder.
posted by EarBucket at 3:41 PM on April 11, 2010 [4 favorites]


omonra: "If the unrestricted free market encourages things like the housing bubble, I'd rather live under socialism."

Greenspan's Bubble was child's play. Intractability of Financial Derivatives | Freedom to Tinker
But the new paper shows that in addition to that kind of danger, risks can arise because a seller can deliberately construct a derivative with a booby trap hiding in plain sight.
posted by psyche7 at 3:49 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


Whatever message you may be intending to send, the message that the Democrats receive is "those crazy leftists are really unreasonable".

Their being tone deaf is not a great argument for my voting for them.
posted by DU at 4:04 PM on April 11, 2010


'GOP hopes to go from Party of No to Party of Choice.'

Confused Palin: It is ‘mistaken’ to call GOP the ‘Party of No,’ but GOP is right to be ‘Party of No’ to Obama.
posted by ericb at 4:05 PM on April 11, 2010


Their being tone deaf is not a great argument for my voting for them.

How about their not invading random countries, not deregulating everything they can get their hands on, and not flushing the economy down the toilet?
posted by EarBucket at 4:05 PM on April 11, 2010 [3 favorites]


Use your vote to select candidates. Use the rest of the political process to send a message.

i wish i could favorite this two million times
posted by angrycat at 4:06 PM on April 11, 2010


Use your vote to select candidates. Use the rest of the political process to send a message.

No reason I can't do both. Make them work to earn a vote they could conceivably get (mine) vs one they can never get but nonetheless work tirelessly for (Rush Limbaugh's).
posted by DU at 4:06 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


But there's no need to rehash that argument. I already know how popular the "KEEP THE STATUS QUO AT ALL COSTS!!!" brigade is.
posted by DU at 4:12 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


well one problem for that is what you want "work to earn a vote"
that's the problem with polarization: what obama would say to appeal to advocates of single payer (which i support) would get distorted into craziness by the crazies
field progressive candidates; if there's a viable alternative to obama a lot of leftists like myself would support him or her
posted by angrycat at 4:15 PM on April 11, 2010


which is not what i just said, but whatever
posted by angrycat at 4:16 PM on April 11, 2010


Others think they HAVE been 'doing things' like 'stabilized the banks' via taking tax payer money and handing it over to the banks.

This is the typical rhetorical technique of the right - drop a comment like this into a conversation and leave it floating like the proverbial turd in the punchbowl. No explanation; just a statement that is so obviously true and damning of the left.

One little problem - the government has already realized a 8.5% return on the bank bailout funds. On my planet, I call that a success. ( There are certainly aspects of finance that could, and should, be argued about, but calling what's been done a fiscal disaster is just a lie.)
posted by Benny Andajetz at 4:17 PM on April 11, 2010 [8 favorites]


The thing I hate the most is that the best thing to happen lately is a failry large, vocal group coming out and saying their party has lost it's way. Sadly, it's the teapartiers, who seem to be overjoyed in their purposeful ignorance.

As lazy as I think it is, I think the only hope we have is the "vote them all out" idea.
posted by toekneebullard at 4:17 PM on April 11, 2010


Uh, certainly aspects of finance reform ....
posted by Benny Andajetz at 4:18 PM on April 11, 2010


anansi - where is that plagiarized from? (curious as to the source)
posted by tzikeh at 4:22 PM on April 11, 2010


What? Just looking at the last big issue (healthcare), we had tons of options from the democrats. So many that people got scared and confused. The republicans made choices scary, and capitalized on it.

Yep. And what is/was the position of the winner (by one vote) on health care of the straw poll at this weekend's Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans: 'Flip' Romney?'.
Romney Says Massachusetts Not A Model For Health Reform, After Urging Dems To Use It As Model.

Romney Now Believes The Individual Mandate Is Unconstitutional…But Only In ObamaCare.

RomneyCare ‘Sort Of Similar’ To ObamaCare, But Only Obama Will Acknowledge It.

Obama’s RomneyCare Shout Out Puts The Former Massachusetts Governor In A Bind.

FLASHBACK: Heritage Touted RomneyCare, Key Elements Of Health Reform Heritage Now Opposes. VIDEO.

Mitt Romney on Health Care: A Particular Spin.
posted by ericb at 4:26 PM on April 11, 2010 [11 favorites]


*And what is/was the position of the winner of the straw poll (by one vote) on health care...*
posted by ericb at 4:31 PM on April 11, 2010


Romney will never get the nomination. Conservative evangelicals, as a bloc, will never, ever, ever vote for a Mormon president.
posted by EarBucket at 4:34 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


I already know how popular the "KEEP THE STATUS QUO AT ALL COSTS!!!" brigade is.

By using your vote to "send a message," you are allowing Tea Party Crazy #3 (or Limbaugh or Palin or your typical Republican voter) to achieve greater influence, when you could be using your vote to cancel his/hers out. If it's so distasteful to vote for a Democrat, could you think of it as taking a vote away from a Republican? The current status quo is far from perfect, but it is absolutely preferable to a status quo with increased Republican control. You think Obama's working hard now to appease Rush? It could get a lot worse.
posted by sallybrown at 4:35 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


But there's no need to rehash that argument. I already know how popular the "KEEP THE STATUS QUO AT ALL COSTS!!!" brigade is.

This is a dishonest and meanspirited characterization and you know it.
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:39 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


'GOP hopes to go from Party of No to Party of Choice.'

It's just branding. There is no hint that they are actually changing. It is just branding. They intend to do the same thing they've done for the past nine-plus years. If they didn't they'd be repudiating the shameful rhetoric behind the Tea Parties. I do not use words like shameful lightly. It is entirely, entirely branding.

When our history is written, assuming we as a species live that long, branding will be recognized as one of the ills of the age.
posted by JHarris at 4:45 PM on April 11, 2010


Branding is a major reason that the Republicans have been so much more potent that Democrats - even when Dems are ostensibly in charge. Getting rid of it would be fantastic, but barring that I'd be happy with the Dems thinking a little harder about their own.
posted by stoneweaver at 4:48 PM on April 11, 2010


Palin, Gingrich and the Tea Party all poll at what appears to be Crazification Factor numbers.

The bank bailouts occurred under Bush, were supported by a Democratic Congress, including Obama, have continued under Obama, and Obama and the current Congress were responsible for the Stimulus package, which was too small.

The baseball season just started and will be over well before the 2010 elections.

The economy will decide this election's winners, as it does most of the time.

And like most elections around the world, voters will be dissatisfied with their choices. But, that's me, it's April, and this discussion is about a Republican gathering attempting to pump up their base. This looks as predictable as Robins in spring.....
posted by dglynn at 4:57 PM on April 11, 2010 [2 favorites]


It's just branding. There is no hint that they are actually changing.

That's true, but it's also a sign that they haven't found solid footing again as a party. They still lack a clear leader and platform, and the best they can do is flail around and fight for power and influence amongst themselves. This could change if someone takes charge and pulls the whole party together again, but I don't see that happening before November, at any rate.
posted by krinklyfig at 4:59 PM on April 11, 2010


One little problem - the government has already realized a 8.5% return on the bank bailout funds. On my planet, I call that a success

This is misleading but that's probably not your fault; the government no doubt wants it to be misleading. The government has realized a profit from those companies which have repaid their bailout funds. But you know what all companies that have repaid their funds have in common? They've repaid the funds. You don't take a loss on the companies which repay, you take a loss on the companies which do not.

Saying the government is realizing a profit on the bailout at this point is like if I lend $100 to nine friends and $2000 to a tenth. The first nine friends each repay me $110 (interest!) in the first year while the tenth friend puts all the money in a big pile and lights it on fire. By the governments standard I am realizing a 10% annual return on my money. Even though it is quite clear that I'm going to lose most of my cash.

The losses from the A.I.G. bailout alone will dwarf any so-called profit from the big banks.
posted by Justinian at 5:04 PM on April 11, 2010 [8 favorites]


Lots of bad mouthing of The Other Party. Lots of clever talk about how the Dems are producing results as opposed to the GOP, a party, we are told that is negative, mean -spirited, and nay saying. Thus we are fairly well convinced that the Obama train is moving along at a decent pace and will get to where it is heading. Only one problem: we well be underestimating the strange minds of the American electorate.
posted by Postroad at 5:15 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


Aren't they cute, those Republicans? Almost human!
posted by Guy_Inamonkeysuit at 5:18 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


We are all dupes of the media.

It ALL STARTS WITH CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. which won't happen.

Perchance the repubs regain control of the reigns of power, things will continue to get worse, except they will say things are getting better. You are living in the fall of the American experience, nothing will change the course.

One thing for certain, our corporate masters will feel no pain. Unless we as a people decide to get all Reign of Terror on their asses, and that would require turning off the TV.

Close your eyes and accept your fate. We countenance this environment, it all started with the dismantling of FCC media ownership regulations.

It'll take more than votes or PACs to close this Pandora's box we allowed to be opened.
posted by Max Power at 5:41 PM on April 11, 2010 [3 favorites]


The losses from the A.I.G. bailout alone will dwarf any so-called profit from the big banks.

Point taken. But, as usual, reality is more nuanced than the arguments.

Most of the estimates I've read project a total loss of around 100 billion. Almost all of that will come from the bailouts of AIG, General Motors, Chrysler, GMAC and Chrysler Financial.

Again, those are projections. Overall, though, the bank bailouts haven't been the disaster the right still wants to insist they are. (Not to mention the other two elephants in the room: 1. The bailouts were started by the Republicans, and 2. Action was necessary; doing nothing was not a legitimate course of action.)
posted by Benny Andajetz at 5:57 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


Well, a lot of people confuse the late 2008 bailout with Obama's early 2009 stimulus.
posted by kafziel at 5:59 PM on April 11, 2010 [3 favorites]


> Yeah, "Party of Choice*"

> *except for the right to choose what to do with your uterus, ladies!

Surely you're not foolish enough to not realize how facile an argument that is? Am I not for choice is I don't allow you the right to do what you want with your children? Even kill them? Even if you believe abortion isn't murder, you'd have to be a moron to realize that choice is only relevant in context of whether that choice is morally legitimate.
posted by snookums at 5:59 PM on April 11, 2010 [3 favorites]


Low taxes just encourage greed. In 1976 the top 1% of Americans earned 8.9% of the income in the US. In 2007 it was 28.5%. And the conservatives are bitching about wealth redistribution? I know a couple who are very conservative, believe the federal government is inept and wasteful, and that taxes are too high. She is retired from the federal government and he is retired military. They both get nice pensions and great healthcare benefits for life. They're oblivious to the hypocrisy.
posted by Daddy-O at 6:06 PM on April 11, 2010


I know a couple who are very conservative, believe the federal government is inept and wasteful, and that taxes are too high. She is retired from the federal government and he is retired military. They both get nice pensions and great healthcare benefits for life. They're oblivious to the hypocrisy.

Why don't you ask them to voluntarily give up said benefits? See how they react.
posted by Max Power at 6:18 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


/reads snookums comment
/holds face in hands
posted by angrycat at 6:26 PM on April 11, 2010 [8 favorites]


Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy Views Divide Southern Republican Leadership Conference
posted by homunculus at 6:29 PM on April 11, 2010


I guess that's when it hit me: the Republican party has successfully brainwashed working-class Americans into believing that the Status Quo must be maintained because there is a small possibility that one day, you too may become Rich Like Us. Mix in a little dose of religious exceptionalism and racial hatred, and you have the perfect antidote to even the smallest amount of social progress.

I spent the day with an old friend yesterday. He makes, and has made, minimum wage his entire life. He has no money, no health care, no retirement savings, and is 58.

On his kitchen table were a biography of Thatcher, Reagan, another book about Reagan and "Can Sarah Palin Save America?" All in hardback. This dude suffers through medical problems because he can't afford to go to the doctor. And he would rather kill himself, I think quite literally, than vote for a Democrat.

He's a bright guy, but somehow cannot begin to see how much the Republican leadership shits on, mocks, and despises people like him.

It's truly weird.
posted by maxwelton at 6:34 PM on April 11, 2010 [8 favorites]


I'm confused. Is there really that much anti-Mormonism in this country? I mean, the Republican base has fallen in love with Glenn Beck, who doesn't try to hide his Mormonism at all. I'm a Yankee who has no clue on how Middle American Conservatives feel about these things.
posted by mccarty.tim at 7:01 PM on April 11, 2010


One little problem - the government has already realized a 8.5% return on the bank bailout funds.

Once *all* banks have repaid, you can claim an 8.5% return. Then we can look at how long it took to repay, and figure out if this was an investment or a giveaway.

But given that there's at least $160B outstanding, it is far too early to be crowing about the success or failure of a Bush administration program.
posted by eriko at 7:07 PM on April 11, 2010 [4 favorites]


When you talk about morally legitimate choices Snookums, you're going to have to factor in the fact that the only difference between the Republicans and a Bacchanal is that the Republicans talk a lot about Jesus while they wander the countryside sodomizing or killing whatever they come across.

I mean specifically on the issue of abortion, the right but an ass load of effort into deliberately confusing a drug that prevents ovulation and one that prevents implantation. Last I looked, a majority of monotheistic religions were pretty down on that whole bearing false witness thing.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 9:30 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


I'm confused. Is there really that much anti-Mormonism in this country? I mean, the Republican base has fallen in love with Glenn Beck, who doesn't try to hide his Mormonism at all. I'm a Yankee who has no clue on how Middle American Conservatives feel about these things.

US poll: One in six would not vote for Mormon president.

The more evangelical one is, the less likely.
posted by Brian B. at 10:01 PM on April 11, 2010


He's a bright guy, but somehow cannot begin to see how much the Republican leadership shits on, mocks, and despises people like him.

It's truly weird.


If you accept what Thomas Frank says in What's the Matter with Kansas? -- it's not so weird.
posted by blucevalo at 10:16 PM on April 11, 2010


Faze wrote: "rather than on Obama's endless wars in Iraq"

Iraq. That would be the place where we now have less than 100,000 troops, right? The one where we're on track to be down to 50,000 by August?
posted by wierdo at 2:44 AM on April 12, 2010 [1 favorite]


I'm not sure simply changing which desolate craphole battlefield our troops kill and get killed on is an improvement. Our troops are just as dead, the war still costs money we can't afford, and Afghan children stop bullets and bombs about as well as Iraqi children.
posted by Justinian at 2:58 AM on April 12, 2010


There's also the fact that trying to control Afghanistan is historically about as sound an idea as getting involved in a land war in Asia.

(Or going against a Sicilian when death is on the line!)
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:08 AM on April 12, 2010 [3 favorites]


For serious? How fucking dumb are Americans.

For serious? How fucking dumb is this comment. Have you seen our political landscape? It looks not unlike Mars mixed with a nuclear holocaust. Yes, we voted for Bush... twice... but we also elected Obama and a Democratic majority and as has been pointed out ad infinitum, they haven't necessarily wielded power effectively - more like a child with a baseball bat trying to play Teeball (create your own inept sports analogy for non-US-centric sports) than a Jedi with a light saber. We're not dumb. We're pissed, disgruntled, and frankly, the Republicans get shit done. I hate them, but they're damn effective.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 6:12 AM on April 12, 2010


We're not dumb. We're pissed, disgruntled, and frankly, the Republicans get shit done.

Republicans are dumb. Frankly.
posted by Brian B. at 6:31 AM on April 12, 2010


Republicans are dumb.

In my experience, Republicans are no dumber than Democrats except for all the super-smart people I know, of which 9 in 10 are probably Democrats and the rest weakly-Republican libertarians. No, the difference is that Republicans seem to have confidence in their own ability to ascertain the truth far out of proportion to reality.

Take global warming for example. My Republican friends will read Michael Crichton's book against global warming and read a bunch of columns and/or blog posts and decide that they are totally capable of knowing that the science fiction writer, op-ed columnists, and bloggers are more correct than all the scientists with expertise in the subject. They're not unsure about it, they "know." Global warming's such a hoax, man. Al Gore is a fraud!

They have similar views about the economy. They read Ayn Rand, perhaps, or more likely the WSJ editorial page and some bloggers, and decided that every non-Austrian economist is a moron who couldn't pass high school algebra. Again, it's not that they think well maybe the Austrians are onto something. They're 100% sure that Keynesian economics is the dumbest fucking thing ever. No doubt at all -- this is something a kindergartner could tell. That's how they think.

This is just my experience -- they're not dumb, particularly, just vastly overconfident in their own abilities to decide that the majority of experts in a given field, whether science or economics. No amount of empirical data could convince them once they've made up their minds.
posted by callmejay at 7:54 AM on April 12, 2010 [3 favorites]


What you described is pretty much my definition of dumb. I'd rather be ignorant than stupid. Ignorance can be corrected. Stupid is a dead end. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. Dumb is a lack of ability to use knowledge to formulate a reasonable worldview.
posted by Babblesort at 8:06 AM on April 12, 2010 [5 favorites]


...the Republicans get shit done.

Too bad it's always bad shit, eh?
posted by contessa at 8:17 AM on April 12, 2010


What you described is pretty much my definition of dumb. I'd rather be ignorant than stupid. Ignorance can be corrected. Stupid is a dead end. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. Dumb is a lack of ability to use knowledge to formulate a reasonable worldview.

My favorite teacher in high school (a moderate Republican from Georgia, but that's completely irrelevant to the story) used to have a saying:

"I'm not smarter than you. I just know more stuff."
posted by thesmophoron at 8:34 AM on April 12, 2010


...the Republicans get shit done.

Too bad it's always bad shit, eh?


Yeah, it really is unfortunate that the stuff that gets done is almost always the stuff that I would honestly prefer NEVAR happens. And really, whether or not Republicans are "dumb" is really irrelevant - they're holding the Dems hostage and it doesn't matter how many times we deny them membership to Mensa because they just don't care. In their world view, being intelligent is the same as being elitist, which is the same as being a Communist (simplified, but this is pretty much how it comes across). So, saying "Yeah, well, you're DUMB." has no effect when their response is "Yeah? And?"
posted by grapefruitmoon at 8:35 AM on April 12, 2010 [2 favorites]


I'm confused. Is there really that much anti-Mormonism in this country? I mean, the Republican base has fallen in love with Glenn Beck, who doesn't try to hide his Mormonism at all.

Beck's personal history doesn't suggest an identity that's tightly bound with Mormonism. Also, he generally presents himself more or less as the heir of a strain of strongly Bircher-influenced fused politics and LDS religion probably best identified with Cleon Skousen. I don't know the exact history, but I'm given to understand the John Birch Society has southern and baptist cultural ties and lineage, so my guess is that Beck's Birch-like focus and tone invokes a kind of identity signal that wins evangelicals over.

Romney, by contrast, is not that person. If you listen to the conversation in a previously discussed (during the 2008 primaries) encounter between Romney and conservative talk radio host Jan Mickelson, you can hear how he gets attacked from the right because he wasn't channeling Skousen (who I think Mickelson actually invoked by name).

Then there's the fact that Romney's history associates him with the North, Michigan and liberal Massachusetts, and big capital, and his political history doesn't seem adversarial enough, and when he tries to invoke language to show himself as something else, he often seems either fake or all over the map. Even though I doubt I'd support him as a candidate, I actually feel a bit sorry for the guy; I wonder how much better he might have done if he hadn't been trying so hard.

All things told, I'm not sure it's Romney's campaign really foundered on anti-Mormonism per se, or that it mean that a Mormon nomination supported by the some of evangelical right is an impossibility. I think the larger problem is that he never found a broadly convincing voice (and in the last primary he was playing for the christian right against Huckabee, who spoke southern and evangelical identity quite fluently). Still, he actually performed OK: if the Republican primary system had been split-delegate rather than winner-take-all, he would have been considerably more competitive, possibly even a leader. Or, if he'd just done what's probably more natural to him and run as an economic conservative and social moderate, maybe just even a technocrat, he might have picked off enough McCain voters, who knows?

I actually wonder if that tack, along with the far more economic focus of political discussion lately (and the Ron Paul roots of the tea party), is what's driving his apparent positive polling right now. So maybe I'd be lest surprised than some to see him emerge as a competitor again. But I think it's more likely than not his general baggage is going to keep him from nomination again.
posted by weston at 10:22 AM on April 12, 2010


Romney won't win because he's a phoney, and even Republicans can see it. Nothing to do with Mormonism.
posted by empath at 10:23 AM on April 12, 2010


We're pissed, disgruntled, and frankly, the Republicans get shit done.

If you've ever renovated a house, doing demolition part is the fast part that takes very little skill. Actually building something is hard and takes skill and time.

The Republicans are just lucky there so much government to dismantle.
posted by GuyZero at 10:29 AM on April 12, 2010 [5 favorites]


> /reads snookums comment
> /holds face in hands

Next time, be sure to provide an actual response instead of innuendo.

> When you talk about morally legitimate choices Snookums, you're going to have to factor in the fact that the only difference between the Republicans and a Bacchanal is that the Republicans talk a lot about Jesus while they wander the countryside sodomizing or killing whatever they come across.

> I mean specifically on the issue of abortion, the right but an ass load of effort into deliberately confusing a drug that prevents ovulation and one that prevents implantation. Last I looked, a majority of monotheistic religions were pretty down on that whole bearing false witness thing.

None of this has anything to do with my comment or the comment to which I was replying. The fact is that simply saying the Republicans are against a choice makes them controlling ignores the fact that choice means nothing unless the choice has been agreed to be moral. It was a stupid content-less comment hoping to get a few back pats for a word play. It would be as stupid as me saying that the Democrats can't be the party of choice, because they want to force me to have health insurance.
posted by snookums at 10:36 AM on April 12, 2010


I'm still pretty sure Mitt Romney is just a guy they hired to play John Kerry in a teevee movie.
posted by shakespeherian at 1:28 PM on April 12, 2010 [1 favorite]


"It is easier to get people to vote against something than for something," said Judy Smith, a Republican activist

I completely disagree with that. It is, actually, completely the opposite. Which is why Kerry could not beat Bush. A good percentage of the people hated Bush. But Kerry could not get people excited to vote for a Kerry / Edwards ticket. He reallly only gave people a reason to vote against Bush. And so the status quo did not change. It does not work unless it's a 'no' vote for some local amendment or something.
posted by Rashomon at 2:33 PM on April 12, 2010


Dear Democratic leaders: Sarah Palin is still a viable political force.

Uh, no.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:57 PM on April 12, 2010


We're pissed, disgruntled, and frankly, the Republicans get shit done. I hate them, but they're damn effective.

No, they don't. What shit did they get done?

Iraq? Total failure.
Balance the budget? Sorry, that was Clinton and the 1993 Dem congress who passed the bill raising taxes.

No child left behind? heh.

Prescription drug benefit? First time that was actually paid for was with the HCR bill.

Republicans don't get a damn thing done.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:59 PM on April 12, 2010 [2 favorites]


"It's hard to understand Fox News tags like 'Fair and Balanced,' 'No-Spin Zone,' and 'We Report, You Decide' as anything but dark jokes, ones that delight the channel's conservative audience precisely because their claims to objectivity so totally enrage liberals, whose own literal interpretation of the taglines then makes the left seem dim, humorless, and stodgy."

I worked for a hardcore conservative during the Bush II years, and whenever we'd get into an argument about Fox News (which was frequently), he would parrot the line "Fair and Balanced" and start laughing like a lunatic. He knew it was bullshit, and he thought it was hilarious.

This is not me guessing or extrapolating. He honestly couldn't say the line without laughing. It tickled him—especially to say it to me, a liberal. Then he'd go on listing the talking points, one after the other.
posted by dephlogisticated at 4:25 PM on April 12, 2010


...the Republicans get shit done.

Too bad it's always bad shit, eh?


I prefer my politicians apathetic rather than antagonistic.
posted by Evilspork at 3:07 AM on April 13, 2010


A day in the life of Obama (as envisioned by a typical Republican)
6:30 AM: Obama awakened by clock radio tuned to NPR’s popular morning drive-time show, Kronsky the Bomb Thrower and His Anarcho-Syndicalist Zoo. “You know what would be fun?” Kronsky quips. “Getting the workers to seize the means of production and execute the blood-sucking capitalist bosses!” “If only,” mutters Obama.

7:30 AM: on way to Oval Office, Obama ducks into private chapel, slipping off shoes and prostrating self while facing Mecca. He chants high-pitched, ululating prayer to Allah in foreign tongue then before leaving, bows before busts of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Saul Alinsky.

7:40 AM: Rahm Emanuel enters Oval Office, gives Obama secret Illuminati handshake, says, “Good morning, Comrade President. The Iranian ambassador is here to discuss his scheme to undermine America’s security.” Obama says, “Show him right in.”

9:05 AM: Snack of sweetened camel milk served with dates, figs, pita and hummus. Then Iranian ambassador exits White House through secret tunnel so Fox News won’t see him.

9:30 AM: House Speaker Pelosi arrives to plot strategy for government takeover of lucrative garbage-collection industry. Obama gives her large suitcase full of cash for bribing Congressmen.

10 AM: Editors of New York Times, Washington Post, New Yorker arrive to receive weekly instructions.

11 AM: Daily intelligence briefing by CIA and Pentagon officials on activities of America’s enemies. Bored, Obama does crossword puzzle, then dozes off.

Noon: Lunch with leaders of world gay conspiracy, who lobby Obama to appoint a transsexual to Supreme Court.

2 PM: Quiet ceremony in Rose Garden, where elders of Kikuyu tribe give Obama plaque honoring him as first Kenyan to become President of U.S.

3 PM: Latte with key advisers Al Gore, Michael Moore, Rev. Wright, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Al Sharpton, Bill Ayers.

4 PM: Basketball with White House staffers. Obama’s side allowed to win, as usual.

7 PM: Dinner with family, leaders of Acorn.

9 PM: Obama reads a chapter from Das Kapital for Kids to Sasha, Malia.

10 PM: In private quarters, Obama, Michelle are so moved watching PBS documentary on suffering of poor widows and children of al Qaeda suicide bombers, they decide to make contribution.

11 PM: Bong hits, anal sex, then sleep.

2:25 AM: Succubus enters bedroom, mounts sleeping President and has her way with him while whispering demonic instructions for next day.

posted by caddis at 11:20 AM on April 20, 2010 [4 favorites]


Hegemoron: Sarah Palin's ignorant imperialism.
posted by homunculus at 11:29 AM on April 20, 2010


This is just my experience -- they're not dumb, particularly, just vastly overconfident in their own abilities to decide that the majority of experts in a given field, whether science or economics. No amount of empirical data could convince them once they've made up their minds.

Consider that Republicans lead by directly representing a small minority, and their only problem is recruiting enough voters without compromising their action goals. And so they cling to an imaginary past for the voters imagination, and paint reality as a liberal mistake, always in constant search for frail denial. This explains how they can preach personal freedom based on anti-abortion sentiments, and how they can start a war or two while making the business case for lowering taxes, and why they must demonize the family freebies like education and school lunches on a pro-family platform. It is all about confusion, delay, denial and fantasy.

The real reason the Tea Party movement is such a big deal is that so many those people are getting screwed and they KNOW it, but they can't stand the idea of joining liberals, because they learned to falsely hate them as imaginary oppressors. It was literally beaten into them. So if I was planning liberal strategy I would get back to basics of painting a bleak picture very quickly before the next election to prevent a third-world elitist scenario in America.
posted by Brian B. at 9:30 PM on April 20, 2010


« Older 29 Semi-Productive Things I Do Online When I'm Try...  |  Jennifer Springman has been do... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments