You Can't Reason with Unreasonable People.

An open letter to President Obama and the Democrats in both houses.

Dear Democrats,

It's nice that you want to play bipartisanism, it really is. But the people you are trying to play with, they are never going to play with you. These are not your father's conservatives. These are not reasonable people. Ever since Newt Gingrich led his gang of yahoos into Washington, the right wing of the Republican Party (and the right wing is pretty much all that is left of the party in DC) sees every issue as a take-no-prisoners, winner-take-all deathmatch. They will never compromise with you.

You see, they have convinced themselves that they are on the side of good, and anyone who disagrees with them is neccessarilly on the side of evil. And there is no in-between. See, conservatives in general tend to see everything in stark black and white, good and evil, us-vs-them terms. And these extreme right wingers naturally take that to the extreme. So if you put forth a bill that included free blow jobs for all Republican Senators, they would still vote against it. They would rather lose the vote then be seen as accommodating or compromising with the forces of evil.

Let me give you an example. Are you familiar with Dede Scozzafava? She is a Republican running for Congress from New York State. According to her local paper, "Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava has introduced a number of bills to the State Assembly that would enact harsher penalties for criminals, fill holes in the justice system, and help keep repeat offenders off the streets." So, she's a good ol' fashioned tough-on-crime Republican, right? But apparently on some social issues she differs with the hard right, like she doesn't really hate the gay people. Now, according to Politico.com, "many conservative groups are rallying behind Doug Hoffman, a third-party candidate running on the Conservative Party line, even though their support for him might pave the way for a Democratic takeover of the seat recently vacated by GOP Rep. John McHugh."

That's right, they would rather lose the seat to the democrats than support a Republican who is less than ideologically pure. “She’s not even a moderate. She is a radical, ultraleftist who has an ‘R’ next to her name,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, chairwoman of Susan B. Anthony List, an organization that backs female candidates who oppose abortion and has endorsed Hoffman.

Okay, so if they think that a fellow Republican is a "radical ultra-leftist" because she disagrees on a few issues, that should tell you a bit about where these nuts are coming from.

The good news is, you don't need them. Democrats have the majority in both houses, including a filibuster-proof super-majority in the Senate, along with a Democratic president. You can pass whatever you want. You could pass a law making it illegal for kittens to be adorable, and there's nothing they could do (although you'd have a hard time enforcing that one!) So pass a fucking health care bill. And make a strong public option the centerpiece of the legislation. They're going to scream and wail and call it communism and fascism and socialism and Satanism and everything else under the sun, but you know what? They're going to do that anyway, no matter what you do. And they don't matter.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28071.html#ixzz0TOTqyB5r

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28071.html#ixzz0TO7b7PUZ

Michele Bachmann Opens Mouth, Dumb Falls Out

Apparently unhappy about losing to Erick Erickson in the last round of "Who's Stupider?", Minnesota's public embarrassment, Michele Bachmann went for extra credit on the Bill O'Reilly Hour of Awfulness.

First, Bill asks her this head-hurtingly stupid question:

“Now you are a pretty interesting politician congresswoman. You are second to Sarah Palin in far left angst. You Sarah Palin leads the league, no doubt,
but they’re after you now. . . How did you get into that wheelhouse?

Now, the correct answer to this would be "Oh, they're not after me, Bill. They just mock me because I make it so goddamm easy by saying stupid shit all the time."
But no. Instead she offers this:

“It may bother them that conservative women are happy and don’t need government in order to be successful in life. I have a great husband, great kids, I had a great career as a federal tax attorney, and I don’t need government to be successful."

That's right. Dimwit McBatshit has had two careers, one as a Federal Tax Attorney, the other as a member of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, but no! She certainly doesn't need the Government to be successful. Just like I don't need the damn internet to publish my little blog.

Also, Peyton Manning doesn't need the NFL to be a successful quarterback.

In her defense, her first job as a tax attorney was probably not working for the Federal Government, but helping her clients cheat and defraud it. Still, without the Federal Government, that job would not exist. So the final score is:
Jobs Michele Bachmann has held which are dependant upon the Federal Government: 2
Non-Government related jobs Michele Bachmann has held: 0

So, no. You don't need that durn Guvmint at all, Congresswoman! God, what a buffoon.

Coming Soon to a Horrible, Awful Bookstore Near You

The Case Against Women's Suffrage

by John Derbyshire

No, really. Look

Also coming soon from John Derbyshire:

The Emancipation proclamation: What a Mistake!

The Case for Burning Witches.

Child Labor: Why Don't We Do That Anymore?

The case for Stoning Adulteresses.
(but probably not adulterers, just adulteresses)
(who are probably witches, anyway.)


Where Have You Gone, Jim Crow?

Hey, Let's Bring back Polio!
Also the Black death!

A Defense of the Monarchy:
Public Elections? WTF?

John Derbyshire: Why Won't Any of You Women Date Him?
I Bet You're all Witches! Yeah, Witches. That's the Only Logical Explanation.

Fred Barnes Lives in Opposite Land

Fred Barnes is the sort of pitiful little weenie whose nurples are probably still purple from junior high, so you have to figure he's got some issues. Check out the headline from his latest column:

Obama's Olympic Failure Will Test the Washington Press Corps

Okay, first of all, Obama did not have an "Olympic failure."
Dan O'Brien, now that was an Olympic failure.
All President Obama did was lobby for the Olympics to come to Chicago. The Olympics decided to go to Rio instead because, well, wouldn't you? The odds of Chicago being chosen were pretty slim. Even if the choice was made randomly, like pulling one city's name out of a hat, Chicago would have had only a 25% chance of being selected. But please, go ahead and make a big stupid deal out of it. Why not?

Now is the time for the mainstream media to show it’s not totally in President Obama’s pocket. The Washington press corps will never fault Obama for pushing hyper-liberal policies in a moderate-to-conservative country. Ideological criticism by the press is reserved for Republican presidents.

Fred makes a good point.

In Opposite Land.

I mean, seriously when has our press done an ideological critique of any president? No one in the major press can be bothered to do that much work or put that much thought into their writing. They just print the press releases.
And does Fred have any idea what hyper-liberal policies might look like? Or what a moderate-to-conservative country would be?

Here's a clue, Fred. The people of this supposedly right-leaning country favor a public option by about a 2/3 margin, depending on who's doing the polling. President Obama, if he were a "hyper-liberal" might say something like, "Fuck that, I'll do you one better, single-payer, bitchez!" But, no. He's saying that there might not even be a public option, his "reform" might be nothing but giveaways and subsidies for the insurance companies. So the situation we have here is a president who, on this issue anyway, is clearly to the right of the electorate.
And Fred, if the country is, as you say, moderate-to-conservative, how is it exactly that the people of this country voted for a democratic president and for Democratic majorities in both houses?

We know the world loves Obama. What the action by the International Olympic Committee demonstrates is that being loved isn’t the same as being influential or taken seriously or respected or feared

Yes, Obama should have made himself feared by the IOC. Teddy Roosevelt would have come to Copenhagen with ten Marine Corps divisions and threatened to invade Denmark if the Olympics were not immediately surrendered to Chicago.

If he can’t deliver on a vote of the IOC, does he really have the clout to pressure the mullahs in Iran into giving up their nuclear ambitions? Maybe not.

Hmm, Fred makes an interesting point.

In Opposite Land.

Here in the real world, it's doubtful that anyone would be able to dissuade the Iranian Mullahs from going nuclear. Bush had 8 years, and showed that he was willing to dive headlong into a prolonged, stupid, senseless bloodbath if he got a hint that someone was thinking about acquiring WMD's, and Iran started their nuke program on his watch. So did North Korea, but I digress.

Honestly, does Fred think that the Olympic Committee site-selection process is in any way relevant to nuclear arms negotiations. Ooh, maybe Iran got nukes because the US made such a poor showing in the World Cup!

Imagine if something like this occurred on a national security issue. Then the media would demand accountability. The Olympics issue is hardly as consequential, but that shouldn’t inhibit the press in seeking accountability.

No, it shouldn't.

In Opposite Land.

here in the real world, the "Olympics issue" is not merely "hardly as consequential," it is not consequential at all. really, other than the braying jackasses at Americans for Prosperity, who cares where the Olympics are held? Why the hell would you want the press wasting their time demanding accountability for the Olympics going to Rio?

As to your other point, when the biggest national security failure in our history occurred (I believe it was mid-September, oh 2001) did you see the press demanding accountability? I sure didn't. I saw members of the press falling over themselves trying to see who could give Bush the best blowjob.

Third, where was the charisma, the skill in persuading people to see things Obama’s way? The media has built Obama up as a communicator who’s the equal of Ronald Reagan

Yes, if only Barack Obama could come up with a snappy line like "Well. . ." or "there you go again." or "huh?"

The thriller in Copenhagen was not just a test of Obama. It’s a test of the media’s willingness to cover the president professionally and honestly when he stumbles. A love affair with a president should have its limits.

In Opposite Land, apparently, "professionally and honestly" means excoriating the president over any pathetic little phony miscue that piss-ants like Fred Barnes can gin up. The press is actually being professional and honest by not trying to turn this molehill into Mount fucking Everest.

Wait a minute, I just figured out where Opposite Land is:




Clearly, the words "Fair" and "Balanced" don't mean the same thing there than they do in the rest of the English-speaking world.

It's almost as if the Fox People see them as having the opposite meaning.

Ah, FOX News, where up is down, the grass is blue and the sky is green, and assclowns like Fred Barnes are to be taken seriously.

The NRCC totally gets it.

From the National Republican Congressional Committee's website:

So, see. They get that Americans don't trust them. They totally get that. And now they're here to earn back your trust. Well, not "earn" necessarily, but "regain" in whatever way they can.

So let's see, who do the republicans have problems with? Let's start with women! Women tend to vote Democratic a lot more than men do for some reason, something about wanting to have choices, or something? I think. Anyway, let's see how we can regain the trust of women. How about talking about Nancy Pelosi? She's a woman!

This is gonna go great!

“General Pelosi has no problem sacrificing her own credibility as the Obama administration and liberals in Congress attempt to walk back a strategy they strongly advocated just months ago,” said NRCC Communications Director Ken Spain. “Nancy Pelosi continues to make party politics a higher priority than our national security. Rather than listening to a four-star general’s assessments on Afghanistan, General Pelosi somehow believes she is better suited to craft our country’s military policy.”

Nooooo!! Not sarcasm! Goddammit Ken Spain, don't you know anything about appealing to potential voters? Say something sincere, quick!

If Nancy Pelosi’s failed economic policies are any indicator of the effect she may have on Afghanistan, taxpayers can only hope McChrystal is able to put her in her place.

Ouch! put her in her place? What the fuck? I may not know a lot about how the mind of the female voter operates, but I'm fairly sure it doesn't respond well to snide, insulting misogyny.

Oh, well. next week we'll try making inroads with Hispanics. Let's try calling them all "Cheech" and asking for their green cards!