tmccarthy0's picture

    REPUBLICANS SHOULD GET THEIR CHANCE TO RULE THE WORLD!

    By tmccarthy0 on Fri, 09/03/2010 - 11:19am |

    Glenn Greenwald and Joan Walsh are so right, I don't know why I didn't see it before! Democrats and progressive should just stay home this election, cause you know Repubicans are so much better at governing.  I don't know why I didn't see it before.

    You all should stay home from the polls. The Republicans will be so great when they are in charge this time, because now we can be in endless investigations of Rahm Emmanuel's use of the term "fuck", and "retard", the Presidents stealth Presidency, you know he is really from Kenya and we should really prove that in a congressional hearing, and his fascist, Marxist, communist, socialist ways, and his Islamic ties and his Indonesian citizenship, definitely. These hearings should be great! Where is Dan "scumbag" Burton when we need him!

    We should be very angry at everything, I mean, health care, fuck that, no one wants it, so let's get rid of it, and let's shut down the government, and follow Paul Ryan's advice you know, get rid of our social programs so we can fight that war we need to fight in Iran. Damn, you all are so right, slaps head, why didn't I see it before. I should lament Hillary isn't in charge, because you know, my crystal ball tells me she would just take one of her three balls and pelt Republicans with it or something.

    Republicans, well they know how to govern. I mean, ask Bill Clinton how great all those investigations were, and how much money they cost, essentially nothing, you know. I know all you UAW members participating at at Salon, are very mad, that 18 mos later you are finding out how very mean and anti-union Rahm Emanuel is, Andy Card was so much better, Karl Rove a peach, they love unions and worked hard to have the union voice heard.

    And you know in less than 2 years the country has been destroyed by the usurper in Chief. So definitely stay home, your life will be better under the Republicans, they have plans, big plans, we just don't know what they are yet, because Boehner says he isn't going to announce what they are until September, maybe. Well at least the guys in charge will be a bunch of old, out of touch privileged men. Awesome, they always do what is right! Yes... I can't wait! Definitely stomp your feet and stay home, definitely. I love demagoguery and zealotry, what a great way to run a country.

    Definitely don't vote, good things definitely come from not voting, stay home, do exactly as Republicans want, they are so good at governing, they definitely should be in charge again, I really can't wait for the newest hearings under Republicans, they should be great!

    I don't think we should acknowledge any of the administrations accomplishments either, because hell, lots of people on the interwebs didn't get 100% of what they wanted: So fuck him and them!  It is definitely better to fight over everything so nothing ever gets done. Def, def, definitely.

    So those accomplishments like:

    • reversing George W. Bush's ban on federal funding to foreign establishments that allow abortions. Fuck that. That isn't an accomplishment, who cares!
    • Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, that relaxes the statute of limitations for equal-pay lawsuits, fuck that. Not an accomplishment.
    • reversing a Bush-era policy which had limited funding of embryonic stem cell research. Fuck that, good for the federal judge trying to stop that shit, because we don't need no research going on in this country, and the government should fund none of it, damn it! Fuck that,
    • reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to cover an additional 4 million children currently uninsured, who cares, I mean they are poor, they don't need health care, fuck that, not good enough,
    • signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a measure that expands the 1969 United States federal hate-crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, who cares, another issue that just doesn't matter, not good enough, fuck that.
    • Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, a reconciliation bill which ends the process of the federal government giving subsidies to private banks to give out federally insured loans, increases the Pell Grant scholarship award, and makes changes to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Pell grants, fuck that, education is for suckers, and the poor doesn't need help attending college, definitely not good enough.
    • the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, a $787 billion economic stimulus package aimed at helping the economy recover from the deepening worldwide recession. The act includes increased federal spending for health care, infrastructure, education, various tax breaks and incentives, and direct assistance to individuals, which is being distributed over the course of several years. What, fuck that too, all that work on roads in your state and neighborhoods, just doesn't count for anything, fuck that, not good enough, because there is no funding for my sparkly unicorn.
    • We've rehashed the raw deal the UAW and the Car industry got, so you know saving those jobs pales in comparison to Rahm Emmanuel saying fuck them. Not good enough, because the base, if you really are the democratic base, needs to micro-manage the Presidents staff, definitely. And you know, now that you all aren't voting, the President really doesn't have to pander even more to conservatives and conservative democrats, since all so called progressives are staying home.
    • Health Care Reform, definitely not good enough, because poor people don't need health care, you know, if the middle class, that is by and large already covered by insurance, since they didn't get their way, whatever that is, it isn't good enough, poor people should use the emergency room and die quickly. Fuck that, definitely not good enough.
    • And lest I forge the Credit Card Reform Act of 2010, that sucks, big time. What you need to understand about the Credit Card Reform Act of 2010 is that it is designed to hold credit card companies to higher standards. But they don't need higher standards, who cares if your interest rates soar and you never pay down your debt. American's love debt and they should be in debt, up to their eyeballs. Hell yah. Standards, schmanders, who cares if these standards are designed, in turn, to protect consumers from getting themselves into excessive trouble with credit card debt. The Act makes it so that credit card companies have to keep their rates fair (by prohibiting them from raising rates in the first year and putting strict rules in place about when and how rate reviews and increases must occur). Hey free enterprise people, Credit Card companies should get to do what they want. President Obama, WTF were you thinking.(H/T and Thanks  to Uncle Fester)

    I want to go back to the Bush years, they were so awesome! Yeah. Woohoo! Those guys really know how to run a government (into the ground and are really good at never taking responsibility for anything and citizens are good not placing blame on the right people).

    We should definitely start to phase out social security and medicare, Paul Ryan is right, lazy American's don't you have a bootstrap you can use to pull yourselves up by?

    This is the sound of one hand clapping.

    Comments

    You forgot the <satire> </satire> tags ...


    by Donal on Fri, 09/03/2010 - 1:12pm

    At least she wasn't subtle about it. Half the time I'm not sure when WKW is being serious. (By default, I assume he's not being serious, but sometimes I find out otherwise.)


    by Atheist (not verified) on Fri, 09/03/2010 - 1:16pm

    I couldn't get any tags to work, damn it!


    by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 09/03/2010 - 4:39pm

    This is a bit off the mark.  Walsh and Greenwald are committed liberals who both supported Obama's candidacy.  Go back and check the record, it isn't hard to find.

    Yes, they're critical of Obama on certain issues.  He isn't immune to criticism.  Criticism is also not tantamount to calling for Republican rule.  If you actually read their columns, you know that they are even more critical of the GOP.

    And they also give Obama his due.  That isn't hard to find either.  Here's Walsh praising him for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.  Here's Greenwald praising Obama for coming out in support of Park51.

    My ideal for a healthy, functioning democracy includes debate and intellectual honesty.  That means standing for you principles and being willing to criticize people, even those that you support.  It seems that some Democrats would like the faithful to adopt Reagan's 11th commandment.  For better or for worse, that just isn't how things go down on the Democratic side of the aisle.

    Obama's done some good things.  He's also made some mistakes and even canned some campaign promises.  That's not shocking.  It happens with every candidate.  But it's fair to call all of that what it is.

    The ARRA wasn't big enough.  It did not reflect the advice coming from mainstream economic theory, but rather a sort of ad hoc theory that originated from Obama's CEA (read: Larry Summers).  Christina Romer just left the team because she wasn't listened to and was embarassed by having to argue for something she probably knew wasn't correct.  That's too bad.  She's a decent salt-water economist, and one of the few true academics on the council.

    But the Cossacks always work for the Czar.

    Again, HRC isn't really adequate.  Like the ARRA, it's definitely going to help some people. but a lot of people still won't be getting what they need.  And it reflects a reversal on campaign promises from Obama, who was for single payer and against mandates before he was against the public option and signed mandates into law.  That's just the record at this point.

    If all it's going to take to sink the Democrats is some pointed criticism from Salon, then I think it's time for the Dems to collectively grab their ankles and kiss their asses good-bye.  Of course, if that's all it took you probably wouldn't see the GOP trying so damned hard because Walsh and Greenwald would have already doen the job for them.


    by DF on Fri, 09/03/2010 - 1:23pm

    While much of what youi say has some truth to it, there is still very little excuse for the sorts of disaffected whiny nonsense being peddled by some (I can easily cite a few names from the TPM reader base) that say, in essence, that since they have not gotten everything they wanted, and the universe is not now waist-deep in unicorns and cotton candy, that there is no reason to support someone who is better, even if only to a degree, than the sort of people (Republicans) who seem to enjoy the idea of inflicting as much misery as possible on anyone outside their closely guarded walls.

    Never in human history has progress been instantaneous.  And there have often if not always been moments of incredible frustration even for the very best of us.

    Can things be better?  Of course, he said, even if only rhetorically.

    Can things be far, far worse?  Certainly, if "Boner" Boehner and Miss McConnell have their say and way, they inevitably will be.

    Maybe this feels like a rearguard engagement, and maybe for the moment is is.  There is still no excuse whatever for the sort of "take my football and go home" foolishness I see from some of the left.  Inevitably, they are the same ones who will say that things have to get worse before they get better.

    To them, I say no.  You don't get to make things worse for me to make your damnable point.  This is what living in and being part of a society involves - working to make things better, not sitting it out because things were not exactly to your liking.


    by Austin Train on Fri, 09/03/2010 - 4:41pm

    Then my suggestion to the author would be to pick and appropriate target.  Pick one of these people from the Cafe that actually made a foolish argument and pillory them accordingly.  My contention is that Walsh and Greenwald haven't done so.  Again, they both supported the President during his campaign, they both defend him against ridiculous attacks from the right and, yes, they also criticize him when they feel it's appropriate.  Seriously, is Democratic leadership so fragile that it can withstand no criticism?

    Neither of them is calling for a return to Republican rule.  That assertion is absurd on its face.


    by DF on Fri, 09/03/2010 - 5:24pm

    Neither of them is calling for a return to Republican rule.

    Right.  Spreading disaffection and apathy through a ceaseless recounting of shortcomings, with the predictable effect of discouraging support and turnout, their real-world practical illustration of damning with faint praise, certainly is nothing of the sort, is it?  (That is, if cause and effect have little meaning outside the classroom.)

    To be fair, Walsh is far less reprehensible in this than is Greenwald.  She is a mediocrity in comparison to his atrocity.

    And the less said about some characters from TPM the better.  I see no point in enraging myself by recounting - or even considering - some of the blathering nonsense coming from the "Popular Front of Judea" much of what once passed for progressive thought seems to have become.

    I will if you press, but not eagerly.


    by Austin Train on Fri, 09/03/2010 - 6:09pm

    So, don't write anything critical of the President or the Dems because you will immediately send irrepressible ripples of disaffection and apathy, with the "predictable" effect of discouraging support and turnout (when? where?).  Please tell me you don't honestly believe this.

    Again, is Democratic power so fucking fragile?  Do you really think that Walsh and/or Greenwald wield that much power?  If they do, then why is the GOP acting so desperately?  Couldn't they just rest on their laurels, Democratic apathy having already reached saturation due to the solitary efforts of Salon.com?

    If that's not an unhinged view of the world, I don't know what is.

    And if you don't want to write about denizens of the Cafe, then don't.  But if your grievance is really with them, don't write a piece that focuses on someone else if you don't want to be called on it.  If Walsh and Greenwald really are so awful, it should have been painfully easy to actually critique something that one or both of them actually wrote.  Nothing of their views has been legitimately portrayed here.

    Seriously, no one sees the irony of protesting that some people might be scapegoating Obama via scapegoating Walsh and Greenwald?  It's pretty silly, actually.


    by DF on Fri, 09/03/2010 - 6:23pm

    Wait a minute there partner... not one thing I've written says don't write anything critical of the President, but you all get so upset when something critical is written of your, what best friends. Suck it up buddy, it is my opinion and I am sticking to it, in that there are those of you out there, who think it is absolute heresy to write anything critical about your boy Glenn, or my personal friend Joan, is too damn bad! Joan doesn't hold it against me, so why should you.

     


    by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 09/03/2010 - 7:38pm

    I see you've got all 8 cylinder fired up and roaring! Cool


    by Beetlejuice on Sun, 09/05/2010 - 9:40am

    So, don't write anything critical of the President or the Dems because you will immediately send irrepressible ripples of disaffection and apathy, with the "predictable" effect of discouraging support and turnout (when? where?).  Please tell me you don't honestly believe this.

    Again, is Democratic power so fucking fragile?  Do you really think that Walsh and/or Greenwald wield that much power?  If they do, then why is the GOP acting so desperately?  Couldn't they just rest on their laurels, Democratic apathy having already reached saturation due to the solitary efforts of Salon.com?

    This wouldn't even work as satire.

    And I think you know that.

    Democratic power - or any political power in representative government - does have at least something to do with maintaining some cohesion among majority members, does it not?  Please tell me you're at least that in touch with reality.

    Which makes the carping about how the White House supported incumbents some Dems wanted out completely ludicrous.  A President will invariably support an incumbent of his party.  What are people thinking?

    Power is only useful so long as it's held.  Fragmentation makes that...let's just say...a bit less likely.

    Remember, Dems need to fall in love.  All the Republicans are looking for is to fall in line.

    And why, also, does our side feel compelled to drown the barely interested in facts, figures, and policy statements they clearly care little for, instead of finding the resonant narrative and tacking a policy point to it?  Boring potential voters is as bad as outright alienating them, and has the same ultimate effect.

    And in case you haven't noticed, the Republicans are already just about measuring the Speaker's office for new drapes.  That doesn't quite sound like desperation to me.  Premature triumphalism, maybe.  November still has to arrive, and a lot can happen in two months, though our side is moping along while the teabaggers and their cynical exploiters are celebrating even as they cross the twenty-yard-line.

    It's been far too easy for many on our side of the fence to dwell on what hasn't happened yet and feel - and act - as though we've all been utterly sold out.  We haven't. Changes, progress, movements of genuine importance aren't instantaneous.

    And salients are quickly and easily reduced, while broad-front advances, frustrating as they may seem, are far more likely to yield desired results.


    by Austin Train on Fri, 09/03/2010 - 9:57pm

    You know, when you make that "unicorn" argument, you lose? It's like mentioning Hitler.

    Maybe worse.


    by quinn esq on Fri, 09/03/2010 - 6:06pm

    The only thing worse is making the "Hitler riding a unicorn" argument.


    by DF on Fri, 09/03/2010 - 6:09pm

    Really, pray tell, when did this rule come up? Oh right, you made it up.


    by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 09/03/2010 - 7:39pm

    Look, i don't want to get deeper into this argument, but clearly, you (and your ilk) love Nazi Unicorns.


    by quinn esq on Sun, 09/05/2010 - 11:17pm

    What, you don't like humor? too bad, I don't really care! Hahahaha. I will also not get into some pissing match with the humorless.

    Oh, but one thing, Glenn Greenwald is a libertarian, that is how he self-identifies.


    by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 09/03/2010 - 4:47pm

    Oh, but one thing, Glenn Greenwald is a libertarian, that is how he self-identifies.

    And they are welcome to him.


    by Austin Train on Fri, 09/03/2010 - 5:04pm

    I wish they would take him, take him, take him!


    by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 09/03/2010 - 5:10pm

    This is politics, not fantasy football.


    by DF on Fri, 09/03/2010 - 5:40pm

    I love humor.  Your post would be funny if what it insinuates about its targets were true.  That's an essential feature of satire, but this post hardly rises above mere sarcasm due to its obvious lack of veracity.

    Not it would really be relevant if he had, but I'm not aware that I've ever heard Greenwald identify himself as a libertarian.  It wouldn't surprise me if he called himself a civil libertarian, but that's a bit different.  He regularly debates people from Cato and other libertarian outfits.  They agree on some things and disagree on others.  Liberals also have much agreement with libertarians.  But, again, what's the relevance?


    by DF on Fri, 09/03/2010 - 5:18pm

    I'm going to concur with Austin, by and large.

    There are serious issues to debate about Obama's performance, and you're absolutely right, they should be debated seriously.

    I'm okay with HCR, because it reprsents more than liberals have been able to get for the last forty years, and because I take it as given that we'll keep fighting for more. I will always accept a clear step forward.

    I'm not okay with the self-defeating timidity of economic policy, because failing to fix that sends the country backwards, and because it can't even be rationalized as politics. Blowing it on basic questions of the national good are not okay. And I think Social Security cuts or "reforms," in the midst of the exactly the kind of downturn that proves why Social Security is needed, would be a deal-breaker for me. That's simple stupidity. (And as one of my recent posts tries to make clear, a pragmatist who doesn't get results has no rationale for his leadership.)

    But a lot of what's been happening on the left half of the blogosphere hasn't been serious debate. It's been posturing, and scolding, and a lot of unseemly efforts to assume a morally superior stance. I'm deeply allergic to politics that's about personal ideological purity instead of public needs and possibilities. And the worst part isn't that the serious critiques are getting lumped in with the petty demagogues. It's that the thicket of demagogues are concealing the serious critiques.


    by Doctor Cleveland on Fri, 09/03/2010 - 4:54pm

    I don't disagree with your concluding point.  Yes, there are people who are subsituting hysteria for serious debate.  That's nothing new.  The question is whethere the targets of the OP, Walsh and Greenwald, are guilty of that.  They've praised and defended the President as often as they've criticized him.  Additionally, the author has done nothing in the way of actually substantiating that claim.  As such, this post fails and that was the primary purpose of my comment.  Scapegoating Walsh and Greenwald as "the left half of the blogosphere", completely without any effort to seriously address anything that either one of them has actually written, is hardly an improvement on the situation.

    To put a finer point on it, Walsh recently wrote a piece echoing your sentiments on tepid economic policy and Greenwald has written over and over again about the assaults on Social Security.  Or, to paraphrase an old Jedi master:

    "These are not the demagogues you're looking for."


    by DF on Fri, 09/03/2010 - 5:31pm

    Oh and Glenn was in full agreement with the Supreme Court and the Citizens United case. Awesome, that is so awesome for the country. Yahooo.. Let the investigations begin!


    by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 09/03/2010 - 5:05pm

    Oy.  Anyone who actually bothered to read his commentary on Citizens knows better.


    by DF on Fri, 09/03/2010 - 5:25pm

    The return of the republican party brought to you by the

    rumor mill and paid marketing media

    enjoy!

    Just read that Pinal, AZ Sherriff Babeu is lying, claiming that mexican drug cartels are controlling american territory.  These days all he has to do is say it and a 'majority' of Americans will believe him maybe because it's a scary thing to get angry about and will distract them from the pain of their lives but it turns our country into a political toilet.  Dump whatever you want here...


    by synchronicity on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 10:17am

    Latest Comments