Mobetta!
Watching the Pwog take body shots year in, year out from his elected goons, you almost begin to pity him. The cracked proceduralism is so charmingly earnest:
Clearly, the top of the party has learned zip in the past 8 to 10 years or so. I think it's time to work seriously to replace them. This isn't a progressive vs. centrist issue, this is a competence issue. The current crop of Democratic leaders in Congress simply appear incapable of standing up to the malicious wackiness of Republicans.Time to replace them? You and what caucus, brother?
The scuttling of this overladen grab-bag of half-baked giveaways, highway-funding, tax complications, and nativist gasbaggery actually commends the GOP congresscreatures to my dark faggot heart. At least they're capable of a little creative obstructionism, something the gelatinous Donk minority was never able to muster.
I know that Superjesus Black Reagan is supposed to be invested with the full Mandate of Heaven, but all the pipsqueak squeals of displeasure as he fails to get his way without question at every juncture in his young Presidency are unseemly at best. These people really do want a sort of parliamentary dictator; George Bush and the Republican Congresses are their ideal form; they just wore the wrong colors.
21 comments:
Hi there Digby! Welcome to the year 1992!
first!!
Jesus tits, I wish we could hire some Republican lothario to seduce digby to the Darkside. At least when Republicans are retarded it's funny instead of sad.
Just to continue maltreating the dead equestrian here, I'm gonna throw my vote in with IOZ:
These people really do want a sort of parliamentary dictator; George Bush and the Republican Congresses are their ideal form; they just wore the wrong colors.
Did anyone else notice during 2002 that the same Democrats who were screaming bloody murder because the Republicans...
1) demanded unquestioning fealty to the President, regardless of political differences...
2) during this "temporary emergency", the War on Terror, which was explicitly described as unending... and
3) criminalized dissent, called dissenters "traitors"
...these were the same Democrats who, in 2000...
1) demanded all good Liberals swear fealty to their Presidential candidate, Al Gore, regardless of differences on political issues...
2) during this "temporary emergency", George Bush's asinine candidacy, of unspecified duration (because if Bush had lost in 2000 he could probably still have run again through about 2016)... and
3) criminalized 3rd-party dissent, calling Greens and Independents "traitors" to the causes of environmentalism etc...
I'm not sure I agree with IOZ that all political participation is utterly hopeless, but this is one of the strongest arguments in IOZ's favor. As noted philosophers The Who once put it, "Meet the new boss -- Just the same as the old boss..."
Actually, people, that was Tristero, not Digby.
First of all, it's "Meet the new boss/Same as the old boss". Just like Crash Davis, I hate people who get the words wrong.
Second, your analogy is ludicrous for any number of reasons, including:
-- I don't recall any Democrats screaming bloody murder (or much of anything else) about anything Chimpy and the Rethugs did or said in 2002. They were too busy kissing his ass before rolling over and playing dead while approving everything he/they proposed.
-- Who, exactly, demanded "fealty" to Al Gore? I must have been absent that day.
-- When, exactly, was Chimpy's candidacy described (by anyone, not just Democrats) as a "temporary emergency"?
-- I do recall some folks (including myself) being upset, angry, frustrated, etc. by the Naderites. I do NOT recall anyone describing support of Nader "traitorous". Furthermore, being called a traitor to your party is nowhere close to being called a traitor to your country by the party in power.
The Congressional Democrats are a bunch of spineless, ass-kissing toadies who are now, in a Democratic administration, perhaps 1% less so than they were in 2001-2008.
But please, let's not just make up a bunch of dumb shit about them. The truth is more than sufficient.
It's sort of weird to call a politician on the national stage "spineless" just because they're not doing what we'd like them to do. That would imply that they want something they don't have. I think the "spineless Democrats" are pretty happy and have been pretty happy for a long time.
When does support for the stimulus package as a flawed but necessary piece of legislation in a time on national economic crisis cross the line into "pipsqueak squeals of displeasure as [Obama] fails to get his way without question at every juncture in his young Presidency"?
Just want to be sure I'm doing this properly.
dear wavydavy (looove the name),
whom are you defending, and why?
you use the word "exactly" several times. i was waiting for, "and remember, you ARE under oath."
you say this: "The Congressional Democrats are a bunch of spineless, ass-kissing toadies who are now, in a Democratic administration, perhaps 1% less so than they were in 2001-2008."
in the very next paragraph, you say: "let's not just make up a bunch of dumb shit."
I suspect your dark faggot heart doesn't know anything about economics.
I do NOT recall anyone describing support of Nader "traitorous"
Oh, I don't know where I got that, then. Must've read it on a T-Shirt or something.
I suspect your dark faggot heart doesn't know anything about economics.
Lord Krugman hath decreed it so...
Lord Krugman hath decreed it so...
"Subscribing to widely accepted macroeconomic principles is like, totally conformist, man!"
Doyle would you please wipe your feet before you step inside.
thanks.
Ya know that Krugman didn't win that prize thing-o for macroeconomics, yo? Cause his NY Times stuff is mostly boilerplate.
Wow, just trying to follow the arc of this thread is making me dizzy. Person #1 accuses IOZ of (once again) talking out of his ass, person #2 accuses person #1 of worshipping at the altar of Paul Krugman, and then IOZ himself reminds us that Krugman isn't really worthy of worship.
Where does that leave us? Is IOZ still talking out of his ass?
I don't see him disagreeing with you, do you?
why are you here?
The ass speaks more truth than a poised mouth connected to a politic brain.
LI do NOT recall anyone describing support of Nader "traitorous".
Oh you fucking pwoggie tub of shit. You lying little turd. After all the crap you and your rinky-dink gutless do-nothing oh-so-liberal friends so gleefully rained down on Nader and his supporters - suddenly it's all gone down the memory hole, eh?
That's just fucking precious, you hypocritical bag of monkey filth.
"Subscribing to widely accepted macroeconomic principles is like, totally conformist, man!"
krugman is not a macro-economist. his function at the nytimes is not as an economist. his function at the nyimes is to provide credibility for the opinions of the nytimes. that people are looking to him for advice on macro-economics through his writings for the nytimes reveals ignorance and much about the predilections of the people attempting this.
The ass speaks more truth than a poised mouth connected to a politic brain.
Dude, that's just fucking brilliant. I want that on a T-shirt.
Seriously, those are our only two options? We either march in lockstep with Dem-party conformists or we make shit up?
You really can't see any choices other than knee-jerk partisanship or crackpot contrarianism? And what better example of crackpot contrarianism than, "The Democrats want to dramatically increase government spending when we're poised on the verge of Great Depression the Sequel, so I'm agin it!"
Post a Comment