Batshit In America


Shariah, the Law that Refreshes.

The first installment of a series I’m calling “Batshit In America” comes courtesy of newly-minted GOP/Teabagger senatorial candidate from Delaware, Christine O’Donnell.  Since she was pretty much an unknown entity before this week, after she won the nomination the digging quickly got underway and predictably, it wasn’t long before some ugly little skeletons were boogeying out of Christine’s closet.

O’Donnell, also known as “the Anti-Masturbation Candidate“, has apparently waxed longingly about how “refreshing” she found the oppressive laws in the Middle East while she was visiting there.  Take it away, Christine:

I’ll tell you, I just came back from the Middle East, and it was refreshing. With all that is going on, it was refreshing not to be constantly bombarded with smut all the time. [MSNBC, 3/23/04]

Bombarded with smut?  Where is this place?  Can I go there?

Little wonder O’Donnell is currently knocking them dead at the “Values Voters Summit“, the frenzied little shindig put on by the Jesus Camp hatebots from the American Taliban Family Research Council.  One would think her empathy with Shariah Law would go over like a lead balloon with this crowd, but really, when the masks drop they’re all Taliban.

UPDATE: Hmmm, looks like someone clued into the fact that this candidate isn’t exactly camera-ready.  I anticipate a Palin-like avoidance of all media except Fox.

65 Responses to “Batshit In America”


  1. 2 JJ Saturday, September 18, 2010 at 11:28 am

    Kisses to you too, Brian.

    Or was that supposed to stand for the smutty nature of this blog? 😯

  2. 3 Kim Saturday, September 18, 2010 at 11:58 am

    I guess the war on vibrators is “tooling up”.=P

  3. 4 balbulican Saturday, September 18, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    Here’s what I don’t get.

    A relatively small group of American weirdos are attracting a lot of press and flexing political muscle way beyond their actual strength. That’s for a lot of reasons. Americans are slow, uneasily coming to realize that their days of Empire are gently crumbling, there’s a black guy in the Oval Office, and the Tea Party Yahoos are promising them a return to a sepia tinted past of cheerful, prosperous white Christian governance that never really existed (if you were female, gay, anything but white, poor, etc.)

    Okay, I understand the appeal of nostalgia, even if it’s for a fantasy.

    But why are conservatives so happy about seeing the Republican party torn apart? Why are they celebrating divisive victories that are going to force intelligent or moderate conservatives to vote for anything except the Teabaggers and Palinites??

  4. 5 jkg Saturday, September 18, 2010 at 1:04 pm

    @Balb,

    If we look at party takeovers in the past, there is basic set pattern which occurs: Fringe groups forms, increases momentum due to sympathetic pundits or savy campaigning, hammers the discourse until it is deformed to their set terms and framework, waits until a larger party begins to falter, and captures populist sentiment to engulf, remove, or convert incumbent party stalwarts.

    This may sound crazy, but one of Palin’s rare skill is that she acts as both a channel and a catalyst for the Tea Party to participate in the Republican party with the added benefit of accumulating increasing control over party machinery and policy. If the Tea Party were completely shut out of any Republican representation, this would have split the Republican vote, much to the delight of the Democrats. Through Palin, the Teabaggers could be placated in the GOP, but I would suspect that once this populist wave flows through the GOP and reluctant moderates step aside or convert, the Teapartiers will perform poorly in articulating policy and implode. If I were the likes of Castle or Snow, I would happily step aside and let the Teabag Boat crash right itself into a iceberg.

  5. 6 balbulican Saturday, September 18, 2010 at 1:55 pm

    Okay, I buy that dynamic as a description of what’s happening now. But I cannot see it as sustainable, or workable as a governing body, in any sense at all.

  6. 7 JJ Saturday, September 18, 2010 at 3:35 pm

    Kim

    I guess the war on vibrators is “tooling up”.=P

    O’Donnell may not be a master political tactician, but at least she is master of her domain.

  7. 8 JJ Saturday, September 18, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    Balb

    the Tea Party Yahoos are promising them a return to a sepia tinted past of cheerful, prosperous white Christian governance that never really existed (if you were female, gay, anything but white, poor, etc.)

    Even in that regard they don’t have all their shit in one bag. What the Palin branch of the tea party wants is a lot different than what the Paulies want — I’m actually surprised the whole thing hasn’t imploded over those differences by now.

    But why are conservatives so happy about seeing the Republican party torn apart? Why are they celebrating divisive victories that are going to force intelligent or moderate conservatives to vote for anything except the Teabaggers and Palinites??

    I suspect that most non-teaparty conservatives, and even most Repbulicans in their heart of hearts, are not too happy about it at all. They’re probably pissed off and terrified. The momentum of the TP movement might help them in the midterms, but it’s unsustainable in the long run, and it won’t help them if they keep choosing unelectable candidates like this O’Donnell chick.

    Depending on what happens in the midterms, either the GOP will lay down the law with the baggers, or the baggers will decide to split off into a new party.

  8. 9 JJ Saturday, September 18, 2010 at 4:22 pm

    jkg

    If I were the likes of Castle or Snow, I would happily step aside and let the Teabag Boat crash right itself into a iceberg.

    That is if moderates can survive the Teabag Boat. Now that they’ve got a few victories behind them, they will be primarying everyone in sight who isn’t completely batshit insane.

  9. 10 Rob F Saturday, September 18, 2010 at 5:09 pm

    In other news, Christine’s sister, Jennie, is a lesbian.

  10. 11 Bleatmop Saturday, September 18, 2010 at 7:04 pm

    “O’Donnell may not be a master political tactician, but at least she is master of her domain.”

    LOL! Omg, I’m glad I wasn’t drinking my Pepsi when I read that. Awesome pop culture reference JJ.

  11. 12 RossK Saturday, September 18, 2010 at 7:12 pm

    Balb-

    Don’t forget that the Batshite Craziests are actually making the just Batshite Crazies (ie. Boehner-types, etc.) look ‘reasonable’.

    In otherwords, it’s a brand restoration thing over the long haul.

    .

  12. 13 JJ Saturday, September 18, 2010 at 7:13 pm

    Rob F – And Christine hasn’t sent her off to one of those concentration camps where they pray the gay away?? 😯

  13. 14 JJ Saturday, September 18, 2010 at 7:14 pm

    Bleatmop 😆 😛 But I bet you’re too young to get the pop culture reference in the caption with the picture.

  14. 15 JJ Saturday, September 18, 2010 at 7:18 pm

    Ross K – We’d all best keep our heads down — the Overton Window has been moved so many times it’s about to explode into a million shards of Crazy.

  15. 16 Bleatmop Sunday, September 19, 2010 at 5:56 am

    JJ – Is it a mentos reference? I remember Foo Fighters did a music video parodying their old commercials.

    I’m 31 btw.

  16. 17 Bruce Sunday, September 19, 2010 at 6:01 am

    Aw shit, I can’t think of anything to say, the stupid, it burns! The Values Voters Summit — America’s race to the bottom.

    O’donnell’s lesbian sister is a big supporter btw, I’ve given up trying to figure out some people reconcile things.

  17. 18 JJ Sunday, September 19, 2010 at 6:57 am

    Bleatmop 😆 You’re way too young to remember it. I’m almost too young to remember it

  18. 19 JJ Sunday, September 19, 2010 at 7:06 am

    Bruce – She’s a big supporter of LBGT rights? OMG, she must be totally embarrassed by her batshit sister.

    It’s not Rosie O’Donnell, is it???

  19. 20 Bruce Sunday, September 19, 2010 at 8:25 am

    No, boy did I word that wrong, she’s a big supporter of her sister, figure that one out, I can’t.

  20. 21 Brian Sunday, September 19, 2010 at 8:33 am

    balbulican said:

    Here’s what I don’t get. …

    When the pieces don’t fit together, it’s wise to rethink your premises.

    Many in the media are eager that the TPPs do not succeed, so that skew their reporting. Perhaps the numbers are larger than you think. Also, it is almost certain that there are more who agree with them then the actual head-count at rallies.

    Maybe the opposition doesn’t give a damn about the skin color or gender of the president, but are focused on his radical policies and methods, which are unprecedented in America, and are not within the pale.

    Maybe your memory of ho things have been for homosexuals, women, et al., is sepia tinted on your part. Homosexual men are far more prosperous and successful then the male population at large, for example.

     

    But why are conservatives so happy about seeing the Republican party torn apart? Why are they celebrating divisive victories that are going to force intelligent or moderate conservatives to vote for anything except the [TPP]s and Palinites?

    The only people who laud conservative moderates are liberals. It is typical for non-moderate liberals to promote a bill that tries to get the proverbial liberal moon. Conservatives resist, moderates compromise, and a less liberal bill passes, but the tilt moves liberal. then the whole process begins again.

    Conservatives want this to stop; they don’t have warm feelings toward moderates. If the labels were reversed, liberals would not rue seeing the Democrat party apparently being torn apart.

    Again, check your premises.

  21. 22 Brian Sunday, September 19, 2010 at 8:44 am

    That Test was to so it I could post using a span. I can’t.

    So I wrote a response without a span, but it won’t post. Not sure why. I have tried again this morning, but it still won’t post…

  22. 23 Brian Sunday, September 19, 2010 at 8:45 am

    Uh…: “… was to see if I could …”

  23. 24 balbulican Sunday, September 19, 2010 at 8:59 am

    “Maybe your memory of ho things have been for homosexuals, women, et al., is sepia tinted on your part. Homosexual men are far more prosperous and successful then the male population at large, for example.”

    You missed the entire point, Brian.

  24. 25 JJ Sunday, September 19, 2010 at 11:02 am

    Brian

    Many in the media are eager that the TPPs do not succeed, so that skew their reporting. Perhaps the numbers are larger than you think. Also, it is almost certain that there are more who agree with them then the actual head-count at rallies.

    Succeed in what? Taking “their” country back? IIRC, over half the nation took “their” country back in Nov.2008. There’s no “their” there.

    The teabaggers’ numbers are no doubt larger than what is seen at rallies, and although they’re certainly a polical force (due to GOP spinelessness and opportunism), in the overall scheme of things they’re still a minority, about 25%. In other words, the same extreme wing of the GOP that’s always been there. The same 25% who still think Saddam had WMD, George W Bush was the greatest president ever, and Jesus rode a dinosaur. The only difference is now they hang teabags on their hats and pretend to be deficit hawks in a moveable feast of theatrics directed by, ironically, corporate lobbyists like Dick Armey.

    Fact: over half of Americans have barely even heard of the Tea Party, and over half of those who have heard of it don’t like it. You can’t blame the media for reporting on what the teabaggers themselves do. Even Glenn Beck realizes this — telling them not to bring signs to his last rally, and this week telling them to start “dressing more normal”.

  25. 26 JJ Sunday, September 19, 2010 at 11:15 am

    Brian

    The only people who laud conservative moderates are liberals.

    Not so. Maybe I’m naive, but I still have faith that there’s a vast swath of moderate conservatives out there who are just being very quiet and biding their time and letting everyone go crazy before they stroll in and pick up the pieces.

    Although liberals might laud moderate conservatives for being easier to work with, when it comes to elections it’s a different story. You can’t tell me the Democratic candidate in Delaware would rather run against Mike Castle (a shoo-in) than Christine O’Donnell (virtually unelectable).

  26. 27 JJ Sunday, September 19, 2010 at 11:18 am

    Balb

    You missed the entire point, Brian.

    That’s just Brian being Brian 😛

  27. 28 JJ Sunday, September 19, 2010 at 11:30 am

    Brian – David Frum, someone you probably hate with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns, did a good piece this week that enlarges on my point about what’s going on with the Teapublicans.

    They’d rather lose a seat than run a moderate and win it, just to make some kind of whacked-out statement.

    Which is pretty sad, and definitely unsustainable.

  28. 29 fern hill Sunday, September 19, 2010 at 11:48 am

    That’s a good column by Frum. One commenter called him a commie. No shit. They are brain damaged, those people.

  29. 30 JJ Sunday, September 19, 2010 at 11:57 am

    Bwahaa! I was just reading through the comments, laughing my ass off. “Anyone who can’t see Frum is a commie isn’t a real conservative” 😆 😆 And I was thinking “Gee, I wonder if one of these guys is Brian?”

  30. 31 Bleatmop Sunday, September 19, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    JJ – Coca-cola!?!? Before it was Coca-cola classic!?!?! (actually, I remember the horrible near end of the earth as we know it that was new coke. Thousands, nay millions, nay some even say billions did horrible horrible things like switching to Pepsi and voted for Regan.

    ,

    Nay.

  31. 32 fern hill Sunday, September 19, 2010 at 12:18 pm

    OT, but adding to the smutty nature of this blog. Come over to our place for a Tim Minchin vid that will either offend you into next month or make you laff your ass off.

  32. 33 Brian Sunday, September 19, 2010 at 12:27 pm

    Succeed in what?

    In the media’s stock in trade, publicity. To media types, being reported on is success, being ignored is failure. Many in the media don’t want people to hear about the Tea Party, so they don’t report on it. Then others, used to thinking that what is reported on must represent a lot, and what is almost never mentioned must be few.

     

    There’s no “their” there.

    You are certainly right about that. It is a silly phrase. Taking the government back wouldn’t be, but a phrase like that is not as inspiring…

     

    … over half of Americans have barely even heard of the Tea Party, and over half of those who have heard of it don’t like it. …

    Looking at that poll, what role do you think the media might have played? When someone like Nancy Pelosi, harry Reid or John Kerry say something negative about the Tea Party Movement [TPM], it gets reported several times a day. If someone like Orrin Hatch, or John Boehner say something positive about the TPM, the infrequent report is prefaced with “Conservative Republican Senator …”

    I don’t know whether you noticed this, or remember, but on the day of Clinton’s impeachment trial, a news caster was naming the Senators as they entered. He named the party of each. But the party names were “Democrat” and “Conservative Republican.” It is subtle, but it conveys a hint of the message that Democrats are reasonable, but Republicans are doctrinaire. Surely both some Democrats and some Republicans are doctrinaire, and some from each party are not? But the descriptions as they entered were uniform.

    When people who don’t pay all that much attention work their job, and watch 20 minutes of news on the TV before dinner, the networks presenting that 20 minutes has a lot of power to shape those individuals’ opinions.

    It’s interesting: the favorable at the bottom stayed pretty stable, but the unfavorable was apparently fed by converts from the never heard of category.

     

    Even Glenn Beck realizes this — telling them not to bring signs to his last rally…

    You are misapprehending, or misrepresenting reality. Glenn didn’t want the rally to be political, espousing or supporting this or that political position. He wanted it to be of a different nature.

    That cannot reasonably be parlayed into asserting that it shows that Glenn is somehow concerned about negative light being cast on the TPM or the TPPs. He might, but that item doesn’t confirm or deny that — IMO.

  33. 34 Brian Sunday, September 19, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    Why do you think it’s sad if the TPM torpedoes a Republican gaining a Senate seat?

    I have really mixed feelings about the turn of events in Delaware.

    I am very, very distraught over the transfer of power to un-elected, unvetted individuals as is taking place in the US government. It appears that there is a mechanism being employed of taking money from the poplulace, then using that money to change the country’s character through non-representative means, circumventing the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution. The government is using this process to choose winners and losers in all manner of enterprise, from home ownership, to car manufacturers, to investment firms.

    This week my wife was talking with a banker who was glad the government had given them permission to prevent people from overdrawing their accounts through ATMs with their debit cards. Of course, this was welcome because the government had previously prevented them from doing that. These sorts of decisions should rest with the individual banks. The government is not within their rights to makes such rules. But rules like this from the federal government ride roughshod over every aspect of our lives.

     

    Those who go along to get along in Congress (moderates, sometimes), it appears, either facilitate that process, or at the least, do nothing to slow it down.

    I see this as our primary enemy, the enemy of liberty, and of representative government. So I am not as eager simply for Republicans to hold a majority as I would be if I were not so concerned about that one issue.

    Then again, with Obama as president, I am very anxious that he lose the majorities he now enjoys.

    Then again, his willingness to completely circumvent Congress makes that concern less significant.

    Then again, the House of Representatives can defund his plans aggressively, which is more likely if they hold a majority.

    Then again, he got through a “bail out” that gave him billions and billions that he can use to do his own funding, serving as a sort of a slush fund, without any input from congress.

  34. 35 Brian Sunday, September 19, 2010 at 1:04 pm

    And I was thinking ‘Gee, I wonder if one of these guys is Brian?’ 

    What, pray tell, have I ever done that leads you to believe I would go around labeling people a “commie” for not agreeing with me?

    I have been vastly more sparing of labeling others than others have been of labeling me…

  35. 36 Torontonian Sunday, September 19, 2010 at 2:16 pm

    This was in JKG’s comment yesterday:
    – – – – –
    Fringe groups forms, increases momentum due to sympathetic pundits or savy campaigning, hammers the discourse until it is deformed to their set terms and framework, waits until a larger party begins to falter, and captures populist sentiment to engulf, remove, or convert incumbent party stalwarts.
    – – – – –

    Doesn’t this sound the the Reform and Conservative scenario?

    It can happen anywhere–even in Canada.

    There will probably be a clearing out of the old guard in the GOP but it will be later than sooner. After another defeat at 2012 in the federal election, the party will rejuvenate itself but must mind that Tea-partiers not overtake the core of the GOP. The faith-oriented and values-voters blocs will be kept to the margins of the party while the mainstream GOP will try to act more like democrats rather than what they’re projecting as their image today.

  36. 37 jkg Sunday, September 19, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    But I cannot see it as sustainable, or workable as a governing body, in any sense at all.

    Ah, but Torontonian’s reference to the creating of the CPC is instructive. These types of nascent movements go through a fairly finite set of successions where at each stage, the decisions, actions, and responses dictate their survivability.

    The problem with Teapartiers right now is that they are relatively new. Since they, from the point of few of party machinery, have only started to get a toe in the GOP, the question remains whether they simply are reduced to another mid to lower scale constituency. Such constituencies have very little policy or institutional influence, but are relied upon when it comes to part votes. I would suspect the Teapartiers do not want to be reduced to relative irrelevancy like the log-cabin Republicans.

    I think we can rest on a certain set of conditions for which the Teaparty may be able to advance themselves. The first key aspect is their electability; this may compel them to measure and water down their positions or rhetoric or perhaps, rely on a strong populist base that could rally undecided voters around their cause.

    If they are electable, the only way they could be sustainable is almost complete hegemony or compromise and integrate. If their zeal compels them to adopt the former and execute a ‘scorched earth’ policy (and keeping up with their rhetoric), they may burn an electable capital and the GOP would have to be rebuilt again.

    My guess is that the powerholders in the GOP would refuse to cede operational and intellectual control, since despite the caricatures, the GOP has, to their credit, a way of generating policy based on contributions from Think (read belief) tanks. The populist slogans can only carry a constituency so far, and I doubt diehard Teapartiers would accept with open arms the policy channels that aided old GOP stalwarts.

    The sustainability of the Teapartiers rest in their ability to work with the party machinery. This would necessitate a certain compromise on their part.

  37. 38 Jasper Sunday, September 19, 2010 at 8:58 pm

    “when the masks drop they’re all Taliban.”

    LOL.

    JJ, I’d say your side is more closely aligned with the Taliban, after all, you guys terrorize unborn babies and they terrorize civilians.

  38. 39 balbulican Monday, September 20, 2010 at 2:50 am

    Unborn babies terrorize civilians? Then surely our wholesale slaughter of them is justified?

  39. 40 Bleatmop Monday, September 20, 2010 at 6:20 am

    Jasper is proving that he can be more than just a single issue voter. He can be a single issue commenter too!

  40. 41 balbulican Monday, September 20, 2010 at 6:55 am

    No, I’m really interested in learning more about these civilian-terrorizing unborn babies. How do they distinguish between civilians and military personnel, and how exactly DO they terrorize civilians??

  41. 42 JJ Monday, September 20, 2010 at 7:54 am

    Brian

    Many in the media don’t want people to hear about the Tea Party, so they don’t report on it.

    Surely you jest. I can’t think of any other “movement”, including the anti-Iraq War movement (which drew protests in the millions world-wide, not 100,000 in one city) that gets more media real estate than the Teabaggers. Glenn Beck’s lame protests get wall-to-wall coverage all day long and for the next week, fer gawds sake.

    Of all the issues the baggers think they have a legitimate beef about, media coverage isn’t one of them. They even have their own TV channel that helps publicize and pay for their rallies.

    Looking at that poll, what role do you think the media might have played?

    That’s shooting the messenger, dear. The media didn’t make all those signs that show racism, insane conspiracy theories and abject stupidity (“hands off my medicare”). They report, we decide: and the public has obviously decided.

    Look, I have no problem with grassroots uprisings, I think they’re a great idea, whether coming from the right or the left. But the tea party movement seems to have little agenda apart from being sore losers. It’s hard to take seriously anyone claiming to be a deficit hawk when they’ve acquiesced to years of outrageous spending & government overreach (Patriot Act) by a GOP government, then suddenly come to life after a Democrat is elected.

    To go to an earlier comment, on Obama’s “radical” policies: Apart from health care, if Senator McCain had been elected in 2008 he would have done all the same measures for the economy that Obama has done: bailouts (which were started by Bush), buying GM, stuff that seems radical, was necessary because the economic situation was radical. People don’t realize how desperate the situation really was because the unemployment rate only went up to 10 or 11% instead of 20 or 30%. I tend to think companies should sink or swim on their own, but consider the repercussions of a company the size and influence of GM going under. We see it out here every time a mine or a mill shuts down, but it’s generally confined to one small town. If GM failed, it would result in cities turned into ghost towns overnight, right across the country (and even up here).

  42. 43 JJ Monday, September 20, 2010 at 8:10 am

    Bruce – So Christine’s sister is a big supporter of her? 😯 What about the verbal gay-bashing Christine does?

    I’m starting to get the feeling that Christine might be scamming everyone…

  43. 44 JJ Monday, September 20, 2010 at 8:16 am

    Jasper

    JJ, I’d say your side is more closely aligned with the Taliban, after all, you guys terrorize unborn babies and they terrorize civilians.

    Yes, I’m sure you would say that, Jasper. And I would say something in response like 🙄

  44. 45 Bruce Monday, September 20, 2010 at 9:55 am

    JJ, Jennie O’donnell claims flat out that her sister isn’t homophobic. Andrew Sullivan calls it cognitive dissonance, and that seems to be a pretty good assessment, plus we’ve all seen how crazy can run in families.

    “On her Facebook page, Jennie notes that she “live [sic] in west hollywood ca with my girlfriend and my dogs. just try to keep it simple and live!” She notes she is self-employed as a “spiritual psychologist, actor, meditation teacher.” She describes her political stance as “conservative liberal.” As for religious views, she says she is “into spirituality, not one religion, study all religions, take what i like, leave the rest.” Her long list of Facebook “likes” include “The word ‘Fuck,'” Christine O’Donnell for US Senate, the No H8 Campaign (which opposed a 2008 California ballot proposition to ban gay marriage), the Dalai Lama, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.”

    She also worked on Christine’s campaign. I get the impression that mentally she’s all over the map, she seems to lean heavily to new age spirituality even calling herself a “doctor of metaphysical universe studies,” whatever that is.

    With insight into the family like that, it’s hard to say that Christine is scamming anyone, she just might be genuinely nuts.

    Source:
    http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/09/christine-odonnell-lesbian-gay-sister-jennie

  45. 46 Janus Monday, September 20, 2010 at 11:25 am

    Well, I venture onto JJ’s blog after a long and busy time of being non-commenting, and what do I find but a post on the latest spoonful of chunky granola to attempt entry onto the political scene…and a whole roster of comments on almost everything but the stated subject at hand. Sooooo…

    “O’Donnell may not be a master political tactician, but at least she is master of her domain.”

    Does that make her a domainatrix? 😉

    Seriously, this chick is teh stoopid. But that’s allowed. What’s not allowed, however, is her assumption that everyone else is equally stoopid. That’s just plain insulting to voters (not that some of them don’t deserve it, but political insult is like spreading manure — you can’t just put it on the plants that need it; they all get washed in the stuff)!

    Her first date with a Witch was on a Satanic altar? Did she then go on to a barbecue at a Jain’s? Or maybe she shared a ham sandwich and a cuddle with a Hasid?

    She’s a liar. And a bad one. No big deal, really, if she weren’t playing with the lives of innocents. But someone out there with a ballot in his hand is gonna believe her, and that vote is gonna be wasted and then twisted into a nightmare of judgement-by-innuendo, so somebody dump her on her steatopygia and let’s move on, hm?

  46. 47 Peter Monday, September 20, 2010 at 1:08 pm

    Gee, Janus, I wish I were stupid enough to know how to come out of nowhere and unseat a popular ex-governor and nine-term congressman in a liberal state.

    Really, does the left have anything at all to say to its adversaries other than they are stupid? The Tea Party sends both established parties reeling? They’re stupid. Ford is running away with the Toronto election? He is stupid (and fat). Harper survives four years with a minority government no one dreamed was even electable ten years ago? He’s stupid and so is everyone that supports him. European conservatives knock out one leftist government after another? The voters are all stupid.

    Tell me, how, after three generations of universal, secular, progressive education, did stupidity suddenly spread like the plague? Something in the water?

  47. 48 JJ Monday, September 20, 2010 at 2:53 pm

    Bruce

    it’s hard to say that Christine is scamming anyone, she just might be genuinely nuts.

    By scamming I mean this feeling I get whenever I watch people like O’Donnell or her obvious role model, Sarah Palin… the sense that while people are pointing and laughing and going “STOOOOOPID!” they’re inwardly having their own little laugh at how their performance is going exactly according to plan. O’Donnell has been trying to break into politics for awhile, maybe this is the big break she’s been working up to.

    Maybe she’s a closet liberal 😯

  48. 49 JJ Monday, September 20, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    Torontonian

    Doesn’t this sound the the Reform and Conservative scenario?

    Bingo. They’re even catching onto that south of the border, that their tea party isn’t the first conservative uprising to ever happen.

    IIRC, the Reform Party was more about social issues than fiscal ones. But at that time the economy was doing quite well so that wasn’t a big issue for conservatives or anyone else.

  49. 50 JJ Monday, September 20, 2010 at 3:18 pm

    Janus

    She’s a liar.

    I suspect you might be right (in which case she’s in pretty good company since most politicians lie their asses off about everything all the time).

    She may even be a little unhinged. But she’s not stupid. You don’t get as far as she’s come by being stupid. It’s the same with Sarah Palin — she says a lot of really unbelievably freaking stupid things, but I’m about 93% convinced that she herself is stupid like a fox.

  50. 51 JJ Monday, September 20, 2010 at 3:25 pm

    Peter

    Really, does the left have anything at all to say to its adversaries other than they are stupid?

    Trust me, Stupid doesn’t ask to see anyone’s political views before it moves in and settles down. There’s plenty of stupid to go around, and lots of it is on this side of the aisle. (Some days, I think most of it. 😐 )

    EDIT: Whoops, looks like the entire point of your comment flew over my head.

    Yes, we do have a tendency to cry Stupid. Sometimes it’s the correct assessment, but just as often, it’s not.

    I don’t think the tea party itself is stupid — it’s a pretty brilliant idea to tap into all that anger and fear and frustration. I don’t understand people who dismiss it as a political non-entity: it’s forced the GOP to move far to the right (and by proxy the Dems look like “leftist radicals”, which they aren’t). I just wonder if by 2012 they will actually be a party — I thought it might be losing steam for awhile, but after these primaries, I don’t think so.

    Something the progressive left is missing the boat on is that people are more into what I call “personality politics” these days — they are profoundly uncomfortable with the state of the economy and the world, and need to be comforted. For that they want to vote for someone they like, who sort of feels like a buddy. Progressives have become distant and haughty and judgmental (like the old conservative you talked about), and are therefore losing their appeal.

    And yes, calling every adversary “stupid” is part of it.

  51. 52 Janus Monday, September 20, 2010 at 5:06 pm

    JJ, anyone who thinks they can get away with lumping Witches in with Satanists and expecting anyone not to be able to check out the lie is stoopid. That it worked this time and she won doesn’t make her not stupid…it just means the voters are worse than she is.

    And Peter, if that comment about “the left” was aimed at me, better get your compass checked. You need new direction, bub.

  52. 53 Brian Monday, September 20, 2010 at 8:08 pm

    Peter,

    For my take on why liberals label their opposition as “stupid,” see my September 18 post to Croughan [sp?] in unrepentantoldhippie.wordpress. com/2010/09/16/when-elitism-comes-to-canada/ (after removing the spaces I added to ensure it stays in the post). Surprisingly, it is kind of a long post…

    There is a collection of people who see themselves as uniquely fit to run things, and they strive to emphasize the contrast between themselves, and those they do not believe are fit to rule (neither in the government nor in their own personal lives) through labels like stupid, angry, xenophobic, doctrinaire, any label that will indicate that these others would be dangerous to allow to win elections, because they are completely unequipped for the job.

  53. 54 Bruce Monday, September 20, 2010 at 10:27 pm

    JJ, True, this must be the sound bite she’s looking for, after all, she’s a virtual Palin clone, right down the oh gawsh golly speech patterns, and that Bumpit hair. We certainly can’t accuse her of originality.

    Maybe I’m an old fashioned gal, but it seems to me this is someone rising on a wave of stupidity that is so outrageous that media has forgotten to ignore it and report on reality. Bloggers and msm media use the same sources now.

    I just wanted to point out the cognitive dissonance these people display when they talk about issues as if they even know how to give a shit what they are, it doesn’t matter, they’ll say any shit they like if it gets them attention.

    Have you seen the Toronto mayor race? It’s a freak show with a good ol’ fat redneck and a crazy fucker with visions of tunneling 8km under the city passing himself as a mafia Don, I’m thinking about moving.

  54. 55 Cornelius T. Zen Tuesday, September 21, 2010 at 7:02 am

    Good morrow, all!
    Since I could not say it better if I tried, I’ll let Saint George put in his tuppence worth:

    I was never here – CTZen

  55. 56 JJ Tuesday, September 21, 2010 at 7:28 am

    Janus

    anyone who thinks they can get away with lumping Witches in with Satanists and expecting anyone not to be able to check out the lie is stoopid

    Apparently she’s lost the Wiccan vote. No, seriously: Wiccans are pissed about this.

    Videotape can be a terrible thing 😐 Bill Maher says he’s got more, and will play them one by one, every week, until she agrees to go on his show 😯

  56. 57 JJ Tuesday, September 21, 2010 at 8:27 am

    Brian

    There is a collection of people who see themselves as uniquely fit to run things

    Agreed. Although that type can be found on both sides of the aisle, for the sake of this discussion let’s take liberals. Many libs embrace the philosophy that maintains the government *knows better* than the individual. I guess it originates with collectivism and the concept of “the greater good”. Carried too far, it ends up manifesting itself as an all-knowing (hate to use this word but it’s all that comes to mind) “elite”, sneering down at the great unwashed working classes.

    The recent to-do about our so-called “Fox News North” channel is a good example of this attitude. The battle is supposedly about what kind of license the station will get, and whether there’s been improper government interference in the process, but it’s evident that a lot of libbies would rather it was prevented from going on the air at all. They’re worried that Canadians are too stupid and malleable to be “allowed” to watch politically-biased programming. They might get fooled into voting conservative 😐

  57. 58 JJ Tuesday, September 21, 2010 at 8:29 am

    CTZen – I miss George!!! 😥

  58. 59 Brian Tuesday, September 21, 2010 at 9:12 am

    Agreed.   Although that type can be found on both sides of the aisle, …

    Ain’t THAT the truth!   The reality that there are individuals & caucuses on both sides of the aisle who believe they ought to lead, and the rest of us ought to shut up & follow is why there are people like me supporting conservatism while somewhat eschewing supporting “the party,” and aggressively opposing the elitism that is the stock in trade of the “ruling class.”   It has been my observation that most moderates are deeply immersed in the “ruling class” mentality and paradigm, which is why I have no affection for moderates.

    The behaviors of the ruling class are fueled by the money that flows to the government.   For this reason, IMO any reduction in the money going to the government stands a chance of stemming the tide.   So I’ll support fiscal restraint when the only candidate choices are the same except for that one issue.

    But if there are two fiscal restraint choices, I’ll support the one who most wants to reduce the size of government, since most government power is the ruling class’s power.

    One of the more central positions of conservatism, to me, is that the power that the people give to the government ought to be no more than the absolute minimum necessary to do the things that are legitimately within the proper scope of government.

    At the US federal level that doesn’t include anything but the specifically enumerated powers found in the Constitution.   That does not include education, toilet-flush volume, highways, light-globe type, funding art, and on and on.   Just because something looks like a good idea is not reason enough to give the federal gov’t power over it if that power does not exist in the enumerated powers in the Constitution.   If the highway dept had not been raised up, I’m quite sure that either states would have joined together on a collaborative effort to standardize the highway system, or a private think tank on transportation would have come together to sell highway-building wisdom, or some other un-dreampt-of solution would have presented itself.   And states, et al., would have been better able to do this, had local money not gone to DC to fund things like the Highway Dept., the (federal) Dept of Transportation, the NTSB, etc.   (Just a few examples of federal agencies that look like good ideas, but that the fed has no authority to put together.)

    Just looking at art, through the National Endowment for the Arts:  If the government funds some art, but not other art, they’re using taxpayer dollars to help choose winners and losers among artists, and so are exercising some government power over art.   That can be nothing but bad.   The ruling class sees it as the power to infuse culture into areas where it would not otherwise be.   They believe that they understand the value of art better than the unwashed masses (hence, they are elitists), and so it is their duty (authoritarianism) to expose those poor people (snobbery) to culture they would otherwise not be exposed to.   But it winds up being government oppression of art that they do not sanction, even if only a little.   And if only a little, that “little” will grow over time, perhaps resulting in an art czar, eventually.

  59. 60 JJ Tuesday, September 21, 2010 at 2:15 pm

    Bruce – What the HEY is going on in Toronto?? Georgie Smitherman is running a distant second to this guy who looks like he belongs in, well let’s just say, anywhere but T.O.??? I can’t believe it

  60. 61 Cornelius T. Zen Tuesday, September 21, 2010 at 9:18 pm

    Good morrow, JJ!
    Praise Buddha for Youtube! All Carlin’s stuff (yes, all his stuff! there’s just so much stuff, we need a place to put all this stuff, wait a second, we have more space than stuff, we’re gonna need to go out and buy more stuff!) is available, from his first HBO special to “It’s Bad For Ya”. I’ve followed him since the 60’s (hey, Bri, told ya I was old!) and nobody, but nobody ever nailed it like Carlin. You don’t have to miss him. Just hit Youtube, type in George Carlin, sit back and ROTFLYAO.
    “And I’m hangin’ tough, over and out” – CTZen

  61. 62 Jasper Tuesday, September 21, 2010 at 11:18 pm

    “Really, does the left have anything at all to say to its adversaries other than they are stupid?”

    No, they don’t.

    In fact, the left is so smart that Obama’s team of intellectuals in the first 19 months increased the federal debt by 2.6 trillion dollars. Which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.

  62. 63 Cornelius T. Zen Wednesday, September 22, 2010 at 6:48 am

    Good morrow, all!
    The increase in national debt, between 1910 and 2008, was 9.983 trillion dollars.
    Under George W. Bush, the national debt increased from 5.6 trillion to 10.7 trillion.
    Jasper, your point being…? – CTZen

  63. 64 JJ Wednesday, September 22, 2010 at 7:13 am

    CTZen 😆 ZING!

    And that’s without even considering the surplus left by the Clenis in 2000 😉 that the GOP immediately descended upon voraciously and doled out to all their buddies

    Where’s Brian, I’m sure he’ll have something to say here 😛


Wait. What?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Mac Security Portal
Rose's Place
Blogging Change

Incoming!

  • 630,841
[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

Archives


%d bloggers like this: