Michael Wolraich's picture

    A Real, Real Alternative for President(s)

    There has been much heated discussion in these pages over whether liberals should support President Obama in the 2012 elections or embrace an independent candidate. In the absence of any credible challenger, these debates have been largely hypothetical. That is about to change.

    I am happy to introduce two exciting new candidates who have emerged from the political muck like avenging swamp monsters from outer space. What they lack in experience, charisma, good judgment, and the semblance of any political agenda, they more than make up for in the intangible quality that some call panache, some call chutzpah, and some aren't quite sure what to call. I give you Kat Nove and Jeni Decker.

    Nove and Decker have graciously agreed to a no-holds-barred interview at dagblog, subject to the condition that we do not discuss foreign policy, economics, or amphibians.

    DAG: Thank you so much for joining us.

    DECKER & NOVE: It's our pleasure. We think. But, who knows - you just might find us immensely pleasurable.

    DAG: In hard-hitting political interviews like this, it's customary for journalists and politicians to take turns pleasuring each other, which brings us to the first question. Ms. Decker, we've heard you own an albino frog named after a notorious pedophile. What do you say to critics who accuse you of harboring a dangerous predator?

    DECKER: I named him Humbert Humbert because he likes to float at the top of his tank with his legs spread wide open, and when I'm doing dishes, he stares at me lasciviously. That frog ain't right in the head, but he's not dangerous unless you eat him. I hear albino frogs are teeming with e-coli and high in carbs, though I have no facts to back that up.

    DAG: I should hope not. Facts are un-American, socialist, and discriminate against Christians. The next question is for Ms. Nove. You have admitted to consorting with an unrepentant right-wing sex maniac who goes by the screen name "Richard the Electrician." Are you concerned that your relationship with this reprobate could become a sensitive campaign issue? What role would Richard play in your administration?

    NOVE: My only concern is that I wasn't made aware he was a sex maniac. I wish someone would have informed me when I was in my forties and still cared about sex. Richard will be the official White House Cat Wrangler.

    DAG: OK, we'll count that as a denial. Back to Ms. Decker. What is behind your bizarre obsession with Karl Rove, as documented in your internationally acclaimed expose, Waiting for Karl Rove? Has Mr. Rove ever filed a restraining order against you or vice-versa?

    DECKER: I'm turned on by pasty white power mongers who bathe in a heady dose of hubris. I can't imagine why he'd want to file a restraining order against me. I'm a lovely person with nothing but honorable intentions toward the man. I'd sincerely like to make millions having co-written a book with his name in the title.

    DAG: I see. Some might call that whitesploitation. All right, enough foreplay. It's time for penetrating questions. First off, which of you is actually running for president?

    DECKER & NOVE: Consider us your future co-POTUS… no VP necessary.

    DAG: Sure, that sounds mildly constitutional. Who would you include in your dream cabinet?

    DECKER: I'd like Sara Silverman and all her Jewey goodness to take over where Hillary Clinton leaves off. I know I don't wanna have to deal with all those foreigners. I think Judge Judy would make a fantastic Attorney General - she doesn't suffer fools well. Secretary of Defense - no question: Christopher Walken. Secretary of Health and Human Services: Sanjay Gupta. Isn't he precious?! Secretary of Veterans' Affairs - that guy who just won Dancing with the Stars seems nice. Secretary of the Treasury - Bill Gates. Come on, that guy's doing something right. Let's see, what else: Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary of Transportation… blah, blah, blah. I say, for the rest of the positions, we hold a talent contest and let the American Idol Judges decide.

    NOVE: I disagree with Jeni regarding the necessity of a Vice-President because we will be Co-Presidents. Sounds to me like she's planning on being top dog once we're elected. THIS WILL NOT STAND!

    Vice-President - Glenn Beck. Choosing him as our running mate guarantees we will get the nomination. Once we're elected he'll be banished to his office with his silly little chalkboard. He will be allowed out to attend funerals of Heads of State in countries where there is the likelihood of riots, coup de tats and/or ebola outbreaks.

    Attorney General – John Grisham. I'm hoping this appointment will get us a meeting with Grisham's agent.

    Secretary of Agriculture - Gordan Ramsey. Job one - prepare our every meal while screaming obscenities.

    Secretary of Commerce - My grandmother. That woman could pinch a penny as well as storm flea markets. As Co-Presidents, it should be easy to get a Court Order to exhume her body.

    Secretary of Defense – Chuck Norris. I'm fearful to elaborate.

    Secretary of Education – Laura Bush. This is her punishment for staying married to someone who said, “Is our children learning?”

    Secretary of Energy – Kathy Griffin. The woman is a human dynamo!

    Secretary of Health and Human Services – Sanjay Gupta. I could stare at his mouth for hours while he performs neurosurgery on me.

    Secretary of Homeland Security – Frank Abagnale.

    Secretary of Housing and Urban Development – I'm thinking Mitt (“Hit the Bottom”) Romney.

    Secretary of the Interior – It is my sincere belief that this position should always be held by a person of Native American ancestry. My choice is one-quarter Choctaw – Billy Bob Thornton.

    Secretary of Labor – Octomom.

    Secretary of State – Sarah Silverman. I agree with Jeni. Even the Palestinians will love her tasteful comedy and diplomatic stylings.

    Secretary of Transportation – Any famous NASCAR driver who hasn't hit the wall before January 20, 2013.

    Secretary of the Treasury – Rupert Murdoch. We'll put him to work printing money instead of glorified toilet paper.

    Secretary of Veterans Affairs – Paul Rieckhoff. I love non-basketball players who shave their heads.

    DAG: I can see that the co-potus thing will work out great. Some critics have called your economic credentials into question. If an investment banker named Bill sold 6,000 shares of the corporation formerly known as Blackwater Worldwide for $250 each and used the proceeds to buy a $900,000 yacht and 25 $10 tee-shirts that said, "I'm rich, so sue me, peon", how much would he have left to oppress the masses?

    DECKER: That depends. Is Bill cute? Because if he's even remotely good-looking, he's probably squandered a ton on pricey hookers and Valtrex. If he's not cute, his squandering has been focused on hair plugs and Viagra - so this information would be crucial to my calculations.

    NOVE: I guess that depends on how many kilometers the yacht sails before turning back and sailing the same distance. Then I would have to factor in the hours...oh, hell. Who am I kidding? I failed algebra in college. In my defense, that had something to do with drinking and cutting class.

    DAG: Name the president of Turks and Caicos? No googling.

    DECKER: Salman Rushdie?

    NOVE: Fred Flintstone?

    DAG: What is your solution to America's slow decline into culturally bankrupt Christian despotism?

    DECKER: Federally mandated atheism.

    NOVE: Clone Sam Harris using a combination of stem cells, marijuana and steroids.

    DAG: Last question. Have you no sense of decency, ladies? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

    DECKER: I have a smidgen, but I'm not so sure about Ms. Nove.

    NOVE: I don't even have a sixth sense. What number is sense of decency? Seventh? Sixty-ninth?

    DAG: OK, that's a wrap or a rap or something. Thank you very much for joining us. We wish you luck in your campaign. Please show yourselves out. We're going to take a long shower now.


    Next stop - Limbaugh's show!  Thanks for the hard-hitting questions.  We're ready for the creampuffs on MSNBC now.


    Hmm, the ladies, er um women, seem easily bought, I mean, seem to need donations, therefore I would like to be Ambassador to Norway, and if I can have this position I will gladly pay my own way there, not demand a complete remodel of the ambassadors residence, oh and I can offer a political donation, wink wink, to the campaign. Okay? Plus the President of Turks and Caicos is Gene Simmons, and since I know the answer to trick questions like this,  I would be a plus to your administration.

    Oh, and your book looks hilarious, I am glad to see it is available for kindle.

    You're hired!

    Where's Norway? Do they have good chocolate? Bring me back a pound or five. Write it off on your expense report.

    Oh yes  there is some very yummy Norwegian chocolate and I promise not to make you taste the Lutefisk, which is very kind of me I assure you.

    Really?  Gene Simmons.  I'm so brainwashed by the charm of Ghengis I still haven't googled the answer.  I NEED Limbaugh asking me questions.  I'd Google the answers right in front of him on Jeni's laptop.  You can absolutely be the Ambassador to Norway.  Who are you now?

    Oh we haven't been  properly introduced.. I am, the greatest living democrat.

    I will be properly thanking you soon, from Norway, where I will host the most fun cross country skiing tournament ever.

    Is it a problem that a "liberal" blog doesn't see any real need to challenge a pseudo-liberal President who's for indefinite detention, expanded war in Afghanistan & elsewhere, no support for homeowners, and couldn't figure out how to do a jobs program but does know how to weaken Medicare & Social Security?

    This is all har-har-har indeed to watch Cain self-destruct, etc., but I can always turn on Comedy Channel if I want yucks.

    As it is, we've now assured ourselves 4 more years of a president who simply doesn't care about liberal values. But just because he has a D- by his name, we're supposed to be happy. (And it seems quite likely not many D-s will ride in on his coattails).

    I was hoping Occupy Wall Street would generate some pressure on the White House as well, but that hope hasn't been borne out, and time is tight for a serious write-in candidate, though still not too late for a Hail Mary 3rd party candidate in November.

    But I'm just not thrilled with electing in more of an awful choice.


    Peracles Please,

    I've seen many 'non-liberals' on this site stating their case in a courteous, informed way and I encourage you do write up a post and research your assertions about a pseudo-liberal President who's for indefinite detention, expanded war in Afghanistan & elsewhere, no support for homeowners, and couldn't figure out how to do a jobs program but does know how to weaken Medicare & Social Security?"

    I agree that most Americans aren't 'thrilled about electing a more awful choice', which frankly includes the entire GOP line-up. I do think it speaks volumes, however. I can't imagine in the entire Republican field there isn't one sane, responsible congressman/ woman who couldn't jump in and start being the voice of reason.


    My guess is that there IS, but they see where Congress and its perpetual gridlock (which doesn't appear to be going anywhere any time soon and anyone with half a brain cell knows a President can't do anything with a do-nothing, excuse making congress all bent on using our lives as leverage for their politics) and those 'saner' of the Republicans out there know that being the President for the forseeable future (like 8 years or so) would be a thankless job... since it's all about cleaning up the mess made under the last Republican presidency.

    My hope was that Occupy Wall Street would put more pressure on CONGRESS, because that's where our problems lie, as I see it. Obama is only one person and he can't do much without some help and your Senators and Representatives are more interested in playing politics than working a deal. They're also more interested in protecting the interests of the fatcats, lobbyists, and a handful of people who, let's just say... make their lives more comfortable)


    I know people get sick of the 'Blame Bush' answer, but that doesn't make it any less of a FACT. It's only common sense: A President who so screwed with our economy, our place in the world around us, our policy to the extent that Bush did  - well that hot mess CAN'T be fixed in two years and anyone who thought it could, or espouses Obama's failures as just his, and not the Congress he inherited, is uninformed at best, and disingenuous at worst.

    BTW, because of all this, there is a NEED for the 'yuk-yuk's' of satire, no matter the venue. If we all spent all day mired in the bilious political stew and didn't take a moment to laugh at the absurdity, I'm certain we'd all be spending more than a few hours pondering ending it all in a bathtub with a Dull Lady Bic to the carotid.

    It's 3 years since Bush rode out of town, and a lot of folks have run out of humor and jobs and money and houses.

    That's why many are occupying parks around the country.

    Most of the robosigning mortgage foreclosures took part on Obama's beat.

    Nixon pulled a half mill troops out of Vietnam faster than Obama got 100K troops out of Iraq (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/U.S._Troop_levels_in_Vietnam_War), ignoring our Domino Effect in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Libya.

    Yuk it up, I'll play the curmudgeon. Like a war, you can't run the economy for 3 years and not own it. Where's the jobs program?


    Your point is well-taken. I apologize for facilitating this flagrant violation of the no-yuck zone. From now on, we ask all bloggers to confine their yuck-related activities to Comedy Central and other designated areas.

    As penance, I will immediately begin work on a longwinded rant about the many failures of President Obama, since our readers never tire of those. I hope that it will spark another enlightening discussion about whether or not Ralph Nader is an ego-maniac who threw the election to George W., as we really need to get to the bottom of that one.

    Thank you for setting me on the right course. One day, perhaps I too can be a real liberal.

    Well great, we get either "yuk-yuk-yuk aren't the Repubs so insane?" or Jeni's "poor Obama can't do all the heavy lifting by himself".

    Of course Presidents can bang heads if they want, and the Dems had Senate + House first 2 years.

    But most important, we could occasionally dream about & advocate what we want, rather than this constant defeatist drudge of how we're holding the Turks at the gates, or even giving a damn about what news media talking heads say.

    So no, I don't wish another anti-Obama screed: I wish innovative progressive policies discussed as can compete, however difficultly, in the current climate. Perhaps a "who's doing what" to link up with. After all, anyone can read Politico and then write some reaction - outraged or sarcastic.

    Our resigning gadfly, Barney Frank, noted that reporters don't see all the work to get progressive legislation even up to the floor, they just come in at the 4/5'th mark to see if it passes.

    So maybe more time spent bantering about how OWS can be turned to a more effective platform, what progressive legislation we can push with the help of our friends, how we can spend the next year productively, rather than more dumb GOP jokes (scusi) and obligatory White House protection. Of course it's your blog, so play it the way you want.

    "...reporters don't see all the work to get progressive legislation even up to the floor, they just come in at the 4/5'th mark to see if it passes."

    Hilarious criticism to be cited by someone blaming Obama for not single handedly reimplementing the New Deal.

    As the yuk-yukkers above note, your time would be much better spent working to get better Congresspeople elected than policing the blogosphere for insufficient hatred of Obama.  But I suspect your tiresome plaint has nothing to do with  improving the politics in this country, but only with asserting the superiority of your progressive cred as opposed to the rest of us.    

    "blaming Obama for not single handedly reimplementing the New Deal." - gee, not a bit of hyperbole? I was just hoping he'd get us out of Afghanistan, protect the constitution & try to lower unemployment. 

    "your tiresome plaint" - yeah, those damn people asking for more jobs & housing assistance do get tiring. Why don't they go hang out in Starbucks and complain? or cut their hair & become a bus driver?

    Ooh, ooh, here it is! I knew it was coming. The awesome debate about whether Obama is good or bad. And for a special bonus, it comes with a bonus argument about who's a real progressive. Great work, Peracles and Ethanator! At this rate, a beautiful new progressive world is just around the corner!

    Somebody wrote this famous book called "Blowing Smoke" where they asked why the GOP does all sorts of crazy stuff.

    I could have written that book in 1 sentence - because it riles their base, keeps them winning votes even while out of power, and gets the left to waste their time making fun of them instead of organizing. In short, "It Works!!!"

    Wow. That's the most penetrating and insightful review I've received to date. You must have read the whole title.

    Only the bigger fonts - guess I need bi-focals

    I just skimmed the title.  I'm afraid it blows.

    You may pan the title, but please do not pun it.

    Thank you,

    The Management

    "...Why don't they go hang out in Starbucks and complain? or cut their hair & become a bus driver?"

    Or, maybe they could, I don't know, actually vote for progressive candidates and policies?  Because they haven't been for going on forty years, and at this point they're getting exactly what they have voted in favor of for decades.

    I would also like to know what the hell you're doing besides some equivalent of "hanging out in a Starbucks and complaining?"  If you're so all-fired pissed at the status quo, you don't seem to be doing anything but telling other people to get to work to change it.  And you're doing so in the way most guaranteed to get the opposite reaction from those other people.

    Again, seriously, what the hell are you doing to improve the situation for all "those damn people?"   

    I certainly wouldn't want to mention the Firebagger site, because that would get people all riled up.

    Let's just say I was suggesting we could move beyond humor in such dire times.

    But I'll take your suggestion to MYOB. Carry on.



    Just a note: "Dire times" is the LAST time to be 'moving beyond humor' as far as I'm concerned.


    You may disagree (which you certainly have a right to do) but seriously - I've got two autistic kids, I know from dire times. If I spent my days 'moving beyond the humor' instead of being rallied by it and the absurdity around me, I'd have slit my wrists by now. 

    Perhaps humor isn't your go-to emotion when times get tough, but to try and remember that in America, it's not illegal (or even in bad taste) to shine a satirical light on life's sores.


    And I'd also point out that sometimes people learn MORE when the bitter pill being shoved down their f-ing throat is coated in a marshmallow fluff of giggling goodness, rather than a layer of sour disdain. At least that's been my experience. cool


    Had enough of that with Karl Rove leaving a bad taste in my throat. Discuss metaphor & conclusions elsewhere.

    Since the gang that couldn't shoot straight keeps defeating jobs programs, cutting social programs, and extending tax cuts for the rich, making fun of them seems perverse.

    They're our daddy. We should worship them, however they abuse.

    The only thing I ever worship is my box of Preparation-H because it's the only tried and true way to get rid of pains in my ass. blush


    If only the contents of that tube worked as well on human personalities when given orally.

    I wish innovative progressive policies discussed as can compete, however difficultly, in the current climate. Perhaps a "who's doing what" to link up with.

    I'm sure many of us would participate in such a discussion. I feel like such discussions have happened in the past, but I'll admit more of them would be a good thing. If you're interested in a particular discussion, there's a "Blog now!" button that can help get this discussion started!

    Personally, I write little enough. When I do, I write what suits my fancy. That's the beauty of a blog. There's no editor or apparatchik telling me what position to take.

    If what I or someone else has written doesn't suit your fancy, then of course you are under no obligation to read it. I would prefer that you not trash it and then use it to soapbox your own views, but whatever...at least that gives me an excuse to employ sarcasm, which I always relish.

    That said, it's a free blog, subject to the terms of service. If you would like to participate in a positive discussion about how OWS can be turned into a more effective platform, then I wholeheartedly encourage you to start the conversation. It's not hard to do. You do have to log in first, however.

    I believe last time I tried, whether disliking the Libyan war or tasering or housing repossession, I was "anti-Obama". 

    Looking at today's hits, "The Rich Believe...", "A Real Real..."  and "Newt Gingrich....", I'd be swimming against the current, though "Occupy Envy" is a welcome addition, thankee Donal.

    Let's say a person agrees with you re tasering, Bradley Manning, Libya.  What about the Supremes?  If a GOP candidate wins in 2012, or an independent 3rd party candidate derails an Obama victory, what about the Supremes?  Isn't Ginsburg going to be 80+?  What about Breyer and Kennedy?  Isn't the next President likely to determine the future constitution of the Court?  Is that a good gamble to take?  Why doesn't anyone ever say, It's the Court, stupid?

    It's the whole judiciary, stupid (not you, just following form), which Obama's done a terrible job of filling.

    Oddly enough, I figure putting pressure on Obama might make him a better candidate and representative by adopting good policies he would normally ignore.

    Of course if you think that any pressure on the incumbent only serves to elect a Republican, we can pull out the King Size kid gloves.

    Of course if you think that any pressure on the incumbent only serves to elect a Republican, we can pull out the King Size kid gloves.

    Do they come in King Size?
    The writing's on the palm...

    Careful, you don't want me taking off the kid gloves, do you?

    From sophistry to palmistry.

    Well, seeing as I've been labeled a party hack and my threads turned into Obama-wars, I don't feel too much sympathy for your predicament. I cannot promise that people won't be jerks on your thread. But I think it beats sitting around griping on other people's threads about what they're not writing about. 

    See, that's the cool thing - you get to blog as you see fit, and I get to comment as I see fit.

    Okay, Peracles... show Momma where the bad Democrat touched you on this Bill Clinton doll. devil


    Hang on, I'll get us some cigars.

    devilTe-he! Was just at the cigar store and your line (delivered deadpan) popped into my head! Thanks for that, destor!

    Great line. That should be addressed to Rove. 

    He doesn't seem to want to touch me anymore, momma, won't even be seen with me in public, but right back here is where he likes to kiss. Yeah, that's right, way up in there. First he kisses me there, over and over, but then, just after I said he was my guy, he kicked me there, hard, and it hurt. Then he runs off and kisses a bunch of bums that same way for two or three years and that hurts too. Then he finds out he needs my support to keep his fat job and he comes back and starts in with the kissy-kissy all over again. He says he didn't mean for it to hurt and to let him kiss it and make it better. Should I give him another chance, momma? He says this time that he really means it.

    Ha! You guys are too much. smiley


    I get what your saying. And nobody - certainly not me, suggested anything about a ‘Poor Obama’. I have my own criticisms of the man. Frankly, I’d have used my executive powers a couple of times during my administration to offer up a solution that would most certainly have told Congress exactly where they could take their next flying leap. I think that whichever party is in power has a duty to not only play to their base, placate their base, but DO WHAT THE HELL THEIR BASE HIRED THEM TO DO.

    These days, neither party does that. It’s all about politics on both sides. But I’m with you on one thing:

    more time spent bantering about how OWS can be turned to a more effective platform, what progressive legislation we can push with the help of our friends, how we can spend the next year productively…”

    I’d happily engage - get the discussion started and I promise to jump in. I’d like all of these addressed in your piece because frankly I think you’re on to something:


    1. How can OWS can be turned to a more effective platform?

    2. What progressive legislation we can push with the help of our friends?

    3. How we can spend the next year productively.


    But I’d like to hear what YOU have to say as answers to these questions. Remember, as an American, I have the right to rail against the machine in any way I see fit, as do you. If you’re not actively participating in blogging and adding content to the discussion (and I don’t know that you aren’t, I’m using the royal ‘you’ here) then you have no business criticizing those who are based on the content they put out.

    The one thing I’d offer about this particular ‘interview’ and the ‘yuk-yuk’ factor at work - the GOP isn’t exactly doing a bang-up job of coming off as even remotely able to offer up anything of any redeeming value that is based in common sense. Not to mention a viable candidate.

    What about the current crop of GOP contenders do you think DOESN’T warrant the current flurry of sarcasm, vitriol and honest American disillusion they’re currently coming up against? Because from the outside looking in, the Republican field looks very much like a PT Barnum act on steroids… directed by David Lynch. 

    Believe me, I’d relish hearing from a GOP candidate or any Republican with some common-sense ideas on job creation, economy stimulation, and any number of other topics. But clearly they’re either not up to the task, or don’t give a good hot damn. Their entire platform right now is “Do anything that won’t help America if that involves Obama being able to get anything done before the next election.” If you see this differently and have proof of such, I’d love to hear why and from whom.

    BTW, it’s slightly disingenuous to refer to Barney Frank as a ‘gadfly’ (who’s got a pretty damn fine record to back him up) and then mock those who might be criticizing the GOP and their current crop of lunacy.

    Thanks for the link Jeni...... I think it sounds like a good idea. 

    ps Who were you addressing on the above post?

    Sorry, Resistance, I probably hit 'reply' to the wrong comment... this mostly a general comment on the forum discussion as a whole, just chatting everyone up.

    Though the 'gadfly' mention was clearly directed to Peracles. LOL

    And I genuinely hope nobody thinks that, with my comments, the intent is to 'pile on' in an effort to somehow demean any one forum commenter. Being as new to this site as I am, I'm not privy to any longstanding 'issues' site members might have with other members, which is generally the case with any public forums/sites where regulars tend to hang out and debate things.

    And we're talking politics here, so... Ha! Anyway, as with any site like this, there are always longstanding relationships and behind- and no- so-behind-the-scenes dynamics that come into play. I generally try to address the topic at hand and the black and white responses (however wrongly or rightly, spot-on or inept my response might be), until such time as I know people well enough to razz them playfully - with much sarcasm and the use of flowery adverbs and adjectives. devil



    Please look up the word "gadfly" which includes an irritant who disturbs the status quo. You can go look up what a terror Barney Frank was to reporters, who he regularly chewed out in really harsh language.

    Really hard language! *Gasp*

    Sorry, but from the context in which you used it, I didn't get that you were using the definition in that way. I guess I'm used to the knee-jerk reaction to Mr. Frank, given most conservatives generally refer to his 'gadfliness' in more sodomitic terms.


    gad·fly [gád fl]

    (plural gad·flies)

    1. fly that bites livestock: a fly that irritates livestock by biting them and sucking their blood. Horseflies are a type of gadfly.
    Family: Tabanidae
    2. somebody annoying: somebody regarded as persistently annoying or irritating



    "A gadfly is a person who upsets the status quo by posing upsetting or novel questions, or just being an irritant. The term has been used to describe many politicians and social commentators."

    Chewed Out By Barney Frank: Reporters Remember (TWEETS)

    Oh my God I'm gonna miss that man. LOL Thanks for the link. yes


    Barney Frank for President.

    I should make it clear I get daily / hourly emails from concerned Democrats who can only seem to make fun of Republicans or defend Democrats, without an actual constructive suggestion at policy or organization coming up. For at least 2 years.

    I personally know for a fact, Genghis didn't just write all those emails you receive, he sold the Democrats his list of registrants and then crafted the emails to send to you and many others here, for at least two years, they pay him 5 cents an email, that is why he must generate so many of them. So your ire at him and his blog are entirely justified.

    Quit hiding Genghis!


    Because humor usually contains an element of truth, I will not bicker with you self-description as "The World's Greatest Democrat", which is only a bit of an exaggeration. You are exactly what Democratic leaders consider a "Great" Democrat to be. Congratulations, you are a shinny cog in a comedic SteamPunk machine that is interesting and funny to watch. Based on the theory that all publicity is good publicity, I am confident that you will be pleased to see yourself quoted in my ad campaign boosting a third party. 

    Awesome!  Then I'll do one of my "I'll probably wind up voting for Obama but I don't really wanna" posts.  If I rack up twenty of those by the end of the year I get a free salad from the bodega next door!

    You already got your salad, you greedy wannabe bankster.

    OMG I know Peracles who is not pleased, what is with this "so-called" librul blog, wait I mean pseudo-librul blog, wait I mean "so-called librul  blog" supporting a "pseudo-librul" President, who is so much worse than Bush he is actually Bush IV he even surpassed Bush III, wait maybe he is the Black Cheney, evil incarnate. His inability to fix everything in the past almost three years discredits him immensely. Plus when are people going to wake the hell up and write what you want them to write, geez don't they know any better than that?

    You're welcome to write what you want.

    It just seems to fit into 2 simplistic boxes. If it's not skiing and science fiction conventions - guess that makes 4.

    You are amusing Peracles not so pleased, this particular blog is about a book written by two women who participate at  this site and Genghis, wily character  that he is wrapped up the introduction to their achievement, in subliminal messages paid for by Barack Hussein Obama himself.

    I forgot that the TOS mandates we must check with you before being happy for Jeni and Kat and their achievement of writing what appears to be a hilarious book. Instead we all must realize there are many more important things to discuss, and even though this blog is about their book, we should move on, in fact maybe even ignore their achievement, and put it off for a time you deem is more appropriate. which is when you say so.


    I'm sorry, I didn't realize giving my opinion made me bossy and demanding.

    It's really just that your opinion was based on an apparent assumption that if Genghis didn't present a serious criticism of Obama here then he must think that there's no need to challenge him whatsoever - notwithstanding the fact that Genghis and others here have challenged him in the past and will no doubt continue to do so in the future. (Perhaps you don't think Genghis criticizes Obama enough. That's a reasonable opinion. But to think that Genghis doesn't ever criticize Obama is to demonstrate a failure to read what else Genghis has written.)

    It doesn't so much make you bossy and demanding as it makes you seem like a singer who only knows one note.

    So your assumption is somewhere G challenged O.

    And then your assumption is I said Genghis doesn't ever criticize O.

    And then you do all that hand-wavy stuff, ipso facto quid pro quo.

    Hope it makes you feel good.

    You get a lot of mileage on assumptions, must be a hybrid.

    So your assumption is somewhere G challenged O.

    I take that as a given, but if you're seriously wanting to challenge it, I'll back it up.

    And then your assumption is I said Genghis doesn't ever criticize O.

    Your precise words were:

    Is it a problem that a "liberal" blog doesn't see any real need to challenge a pseudo-liberal President who's for indefinite detention...

    That's not too far off from what I wrote, in my opinion. Perhaps you'd like to clarify what you meant since I've apparently misunderstood you.

    You get a lot of mileage on assumptions, must be a hybrid.

    What you call assumptions, I call reading.

    If I say "I go to school" you would say "oh, you always go to school, do you?"

    Forget it. The sentiment's there if you care.

    Genghis said himself he mostly posts to have fun, didn't seem to find my statement over the top.

    I find many of your statements over the top, PP. Please don't take my silence as endorsement.

    For the record, I wrote, "I write what suits my fancy," which is very different from, "I write to have fun."

    Didn't ask for an "endorsement". If you think you've been seriously critical of Obama's administration, just say so. If you think it's been fine - could do better, but still a pass - say so. Or if it bothers you to speak, keep mum. Your choice.

    Difference between "fancy" and "fun" seems trivial to me, but if you find it big, have at it.


    "My fancy" means what I want to write at that particular moment, not the joy of the experience. "Fun" is your not-so-subtle way of trivializing it, which somehow irritates me more than the misrepresentations of my position on Obama. Clarifying the first is worth a 30-second comment. Defending the second is a waste of my time.

    Actually, the first is probably a waste of my time as well, but too late now.

    But you didn't say you "go to school". You said:

    Is it a problem that a "liberal" blog doesn't see any real need to challenge a pseudo-liberal President who's for indefinite detention...

    Which, silly as it might seem to you, I took as a suggestion that this liberal blog (AKA dagblog) doesn't challenge Obama (yes, that's an assumption there that by "pseudo-liberal President who's for indefinite detention" you were referring to Obama - please let me know if that assumption was wrong!). When someone says, oh, "I see that you don't see any real need to donate to charity", am I wrong to think that they're accusing me of not donating to charity?

    As for the difference between "posts to have fun", versus "what suits my fancy", the former suggests light-hearted fare, whereas the former could be either light-hearted fare (as this post clearly is) or serious analysis (which Genghis also writes), if the latter suits his fancy. I do understand, however, that the phrasing could be misunderstood to imply that one's only interested in the light-hearted fare.

    "doesn't challenge Obama" is different from "doesn't ever challenge Obama". The former was used to imply kid gloves, not that there's never any disgruntlement in Oz.

    I have fun making new a-holes where people had none, which you might also say is my fancy. Though I'd prefer to make tangible progress on issues. But just up-thread I had to explain the definition of "gadfly" (dagylf?) because someone got in a tizzy because they thought I'd brought down unforgiveable hurt on our abrasive but very useful departing congressman.

    Overall, I find most of these word-parsings to be just feigned horror as a way of dismissing & ignoring the basic simple issues. We've got a Democratic president waging lots of wars, indefinite detention, no jobs program even when a House/Senate majority, continual capitulation on slashing budgets in the middle of a recession, and yes, Virginia, expanded drilling in the Gulf and weakening the Clean Air Act.

    And we're walking into another election with a "but the GOP is worse" attitude that got us killed last time, and not even considering putting pressure on the government (except vaguely "pressure Congress" as if pressuring 535 people is easier than pressuring 1). And yes, lots of yuk-yuk-yuk postings about what 'tards the Republicans are, which from my count, to get my ass kicked by a retard makes me a double retard (apologies for the un-PC imagery). So make that yuk-cubed or -quadrupled.

    Anyway, I'm spoiling G's fancy, so will depart now.

    And we're walking into another election with a "but the GOP is worse" attitude that got us killed last time...

    But what is the alternative? Seriously, what viable alternative do we have? I'm willing to entertain the costs and benefits of a primary challenger, but realistically we both know that's not going to happen in 2012, or we'd already have signs of it. We also both know that a 3rd party isn't going to win in 2012, so with respect to the presidency in 2012, what are our options? I count two, and the fact that the GOP is worse is very important once I've made that realization.

    That doesn't mean we can't criticize him, of course. I've got no problem with criticizing him. I do think, however, that not every post has to be serious. When I look back at Genghis' history of posts, I'd say the majority (between 60 and 80%) are serious. I think that if you want to throw stones, perhaps you ought to move out of your glass house and start posting some serious blog posts yourself. That does require registering, but you don't have to use your real name.

    Gee, posting without my real name? Who woulda thunk it?

    FYI, someone who looks like me posted quite a bit - my glass house has quite a few rock holes & busted panes. Not that it's my fault.


    Thanks for bringing the topic back to what's really important - ME!  Oh, yeah.  And Jeni.

    I get the feeling that if someone said "the sky is blue" on Dagblog a huge argument would erupt, because sometimes it's cloudy and grey, you know?

    Not exactly. A huge argument would erupt over Obama's retreat on the Clean Air Act.

    Obama retreated on the Clean Air Act?


    I knew we couldn't trust him! Is there anything he won't cave on?

    A noble effort. Come to think of it, the news didn't rile too many feathers around here, perhaps because most dagbloggers are more passionate about economics then the environment.

    …but mostly me.  Remember, you’re the brains behind this operation. I’m the décolletage. 

    Peracles, I think you are getting your wish for a third party. As noted in the news section, Rockey Andersen, former mayor of Salt Lake City is forming the Justice Party (not the one in Egypt which represents the Muslim Brotherhood) and plans to run for president. He is a former liberal Democrat who renounced his membership in the Democratic party. I saw him interviewed last night and he is well spoken and kind of looks like Joe Biden. I think he has the potential to pull quite a few votes from Obama and get the Republicans elected again if he can get organized and on ballots around the country. 

    Well, if lucky he'll attract some disgruntled conservatives who are sick of crony capitalism as well.

    I agree that Anderson is a pretty good speaker, [That used to be a necessary trait in a politician, I believe but "The Decider" may have changed that forever] but other than that he has a strange and threatening political history. He ran as a progressive liberal in Utah and won. Strange enough, but stranger still, he governed as a progressive. That is really weird, remember where he was. In the great State of Utah, Bill Clinton came in third. But the strangest thing of all is that he actually was successful in some of his attempts to implement progressive policy. He actually governed much like his voters expected him to based on what he had said during his campaign.  
     Rocky Anderson and his "ilk" may be just as dangerous to our current system as you imply. I doubt he will hurt Obama's chances in the next election but it could be that, in the long term at least, the Democrats will need to adopt some of his methods in order to survive. If the name was changed to "Justice Party", I could live with that.

    If Obama can't win in an honest open race ... he simply didn't do what he needed to do to win. Blame that on the Democrats, not the voters you guys are likely to lose due to sucking so badly. If you take someone to the dance and then spend all evening telling them they are fat and ugly ... don't go crying in your mimosa if they ditch your ass and go have some fun while you go home all alone and the big mean jock gets to be homecoming king again.

    To me, if a party doesn't have the backbone to own their own outcomes - they don't have the backbone to lead a nation. In America we call that being a total loser; whining because your shoe was untied, there was wind, the sun got in your eyes, someone shouted and you were distracted because your cat ran away from home ... just makes loserdom that much more losery.

    Fight. Win. Or walk away with your head up. It's embarrassing already and you all have got like a year of dread yet to go.

    While I'm not especially worried about this latest third party challenger, I'll beat my own personal dead horse and say it wouldn't matter if we had a sane voting scheme, such as some form of ranked voting. If we did, I'd be voting for third, fourth, and fifth party candidates before voting for Obama.

    I think he has the potential to pull quite a few votes from Obama and get the Republicans elected again

    Really Oxy? 

    You have no proof that a democratic primary opponent to Obama, would lose.

    For a Republican win?

     I could only see that happening, if Obama lost to the Democrat primary challenger opponent and then Obama rejecting the democratic voters will and becoming the spoiler.  

    To many of us, Obama has proven to be not as effective as we were led to believe, we are looking for a new medicine. 

    To illustrate 

    Washington is sick, he's got the ......dreaded constipation,. he has a choice, he can take the NEW  liquid form laxative, promising quick relief  or he can continue to take the Carter  Obama suppositories proven to be less effective.

    Never knowing how many you'll have to take and for how long? 

    Eventually the suppository might get you the relief you seek.....eventually.... but why take it that way; when the alternative method; the new medicine CAN deliver the results you seek without all the pain and embarrassment ?   

    I think you must have missed the piece about it being for the Justice Party. That necessarily implies that this guy is not a "democratic primary opponent", which means that he would be acting as a spoiler since Obama is still the presumptive Democratic nominee. No one is challenging Obama for that position as far as I know.

    We need a Democratic party primary. 

    So NO, I think you missed my point.

    Without one; we will see more end runs, around the "establishment" Democrats.

    The free thinkers don't see the need to put on the leash. taking orders  of "heal and   rollover"   

    As though Obama was the best and only hope we had.  

    Oxy was suggesting as much. Don't do anything that would give the republicans the win. 

    Stay united to the "Establishments" democratic party nominee. he's already been chosen by the establishment.

    Don't do anything that would give the republicans the win.

    Right. I get that you're criticizing that perspective, but I'm completely on board with not doing anything that would give the Republicans the win. Many here (many!) argue about what would "give the Republicans the win", and it's not an easy issue to nail down (i.e., reasonable people can reasonable disagree about it), but most here I feel would agree with not giving Republicans the win. You (and a few others here) disagree with that, so we're at a significant disagreement there.

    That's OK.

    However, I have a problem with the logic you must have employed to reach the conclusion that Obama would play the spoiler.

    In short, being wrong on real world issues I can forgive. Being wrong on theoretical issues I cannot. (I'm being snarky there. Mostly.)

    I don't care what people think. hahahahahaha

    Sure they will call me a kiss ass; but I hereby render unto Genghis the Weekly Blog of the Week Award for this here Dagblog Site to Genghis; given from all of me to all of him.




    I cannot even begin to comment on this.

    I am laughing far too hard!

    If you've stopped laughing, I'd love to hear your comments.  This wasn't what I expected to read after a difficult day swirling around in Satan's corporate enema bag.  But it HAS been enjoyable.

    Kiss ass

    Now I'm upset.  The official "Waiting for Karl Rove" website, which I designed, did not get linked to in this otherwise fine article. 

    PS:  The sky is blue.


    I just looked outside and it's black. In fact, I'm not sure if I even accept your unstated assumption that there is a sky.

    My astronomy software packages (TheSky6, Starry Night Pro, and RedShift 6) assure me there is a sky.  Or are you just playing the race card because Obama is black and.... never mind.

    And we love you deeply for it, oh great and wondrous WFKR webmaster.


    But back to us as CANDIDATES. Check out American Crassroads for "Our Plan".  Because as liberals, we know what Republicans want and we're happy to give it to them. devil

    Jeni, I went to your website (Fun!) and noticed that some of your links aren't working.  When I clicked on three or four of them it took me to Wix:


    I keep clicking on the link titled "Boobs" and I don't get any boobs.

    It's okay.  You've seen one boob you've seen them all.

    Typical female perspective. The male perspective is, "if you've seen one boob, you want to see them all". devil

    We need to get this back on topic.  I hate Republicans!  Democrats are the shizzit!  Yay!

    Exactly! LOL  And we managed, through a series of lies and deceit, to get rid of one today. All in our evil master plan!

    So we're not talking about people then??



    Hey! Thanks for the heads up.  Just checked them and they're working now, but Wix is spotty sometimes, I've found.


    ...or, it's a vast Right-Wing Rovespiracy! cool

    Well, Rove is playing games with you, cuz they're still not there for me.  Just takes me to the Wix site whether I'm on IE or Firefox.  Sorry.

    Hmm... thanks for keeping me updated about it, Ramona. I can pull it up but now I want to know why you can't.  I'll e-mail their tech support and find out what's what. I appreciate you taking the time to let me know. yes

    Success!  I embedded the video hawking their book called "Where in the World is Stephen Colbert?"  And, yes, I created it.  Next thing you know I'll be taking credit for the whole damn book.


    You might want to reconsider taking credit for the whole damn book after reading Honest Abe's review on Amazon.  Poor Abe.  I'm sorry he'll never get that time back, but I personally hope he paid for the paperback and not the Kindle.  Snootchie Bootchies!

    Are you kidding me? That's my favorite review! I love being called vulgar! devil

    Holy Cow and What the Hell?  This was supposed to be FUN.  I'm pretty sure the Great Genghis meant for it to be fun.

    So I read all the comments, hoping for a really fun time and, damn, it turned into the same old, same old!!!!

    Jeni and Kat, you're funny and some of these commenters are not.  I'm working on making some sense out of what I've just read here but so far, nothing.  I'll get back to you.  I haven't given up yet.

    In the meantime, congratulations.  Did I mention that you guys are funny?

    (Genghis, you're funny, too.  It's okay, though.  It's not a full time thing with you.)

    It's cool, Ramona.  Jeni and I met on an online writers' workshop and it was just like old times!  The thread gets hijacked, there are insults and punches thrown, and eventually sobbing.  Jeni always jumped into to the fray, while I would usually email the site moderator if things got out of hand.  So in this Presidential campaign, Jeni is the spark and I'm the narc.  This is my seventh year to work retail during the holidays and everyone on the planet needs to be warned:   I carry a big stick and I'm menopausal!

    For the record, we've done quite a few interviews and this was our favorite.  Genghis is very funny!

    Latest Comments