Whiskey Fire

Senators Sipping on Gentleman Jack

2009-11-11T22:28:17-08:00

Some discussion has been occurring about how the filibuster might be reformed or dispensed with. I guess this is welcome, because the more it is generally accepted that the Senate is an utterly dysfunctional institution because it can't be anything else, the better off we'll be, in that there will be a bit less bullshit in the world. The problem, though, is that the only way to get the Senate to be less of a problem is to get Senators to reform the Senate, which is something that will never happen ever, because the Senate is composed of Senators.

So I'll sign on gladly to what Bowers proposes here. But I am skeptical about his points one through three, on the grounds that I have come to think that the Senate has become so insulated from, well, democracy, that it will end up destroying the nation and the world well before anything can ever be done about fixing it via democratic means. In short, I think global climate change is more easily remedied than the United States Senate, and I'm not exaggerating.

But I sure will do everything I can to discredit the Senate and mock it for its absurd self-regard, because, well, the Senate is full of Senators, and I don't like that class of individual, the pompous lot of preening shits.

Deranged Idiot Derangement Syndrome

2009-11-10T20:15:44-08:00

Arrogant Negro Barrack Obama went and gave a speech on a military base, just like he was the president of the United States or something. Horrors!

Lots of people right and left praising Obama on his speech at Fort Hood today. I'm not. Not because it wasn't a good speech, but because the one who delivered it doesn't believe a word he uttered....
Not that more than a few parts were plagurized, more on that later.

I can't wait.

But if Obama believed this he would have since sent troop reinforcements to Afghanistan. He would have never accused our troops of air raiding villages or killing innocents - as he has.

And as we have. Innocents have not been killed in American air raids...?

Obama's actions - and inactions since entering office have done more to cause the incident at Fort Hood than stop it.

Blame Obama first.

Because of these and so much more he has no right to speak for me or any other soldier serving this country.

He's the Commander in Chief, elected as such by the American people. He has more than the right, he has the responsibility.

Suck on it. It's called "democracy."

These were the people ranting about "derangement syndromes," recall.

Breast Flaunting for Jesus

2009-11-10T15:22:31-08:00

A failed California beauty pageant contestant who loves Jesus and fake tits, and disapproves of homosexuals, at some point in her life made a film of herself masturbating, and according to an Internet Gossip Web Site, the existence of this film caused this woman to lose a lawsuit because the people she was suing found it and threatened her with it.

In the ping-pong ball brain of Ann Althouse, the reason the Internet Gossip Web Site reported on this is because Saul Alinsky told them to. Whee! For, as this idiot has it, "The lesson here is that if you have even the slightest tendency toward conservative thinking, you’re an obvious target for personal destruction by the vicious harpies of the left, especially if you’re an attractive woman."

Right. Sounds rather like these women with slight tendencies towards thought do a fine job of personally self destructing, mainly because publicly engaging in "conservative thinking" is an awfully comical thing to do.

Portrait

2009-11-09T23:29:53-08:00

I dislike many New York State senators -- my own not least. But I have long had an especial dislike for Rubén Díaz Sr. of the Bronx. If you are not familiar with the gentleman, read this NYT profile, and marvel.

Every Sunday morning, the deep, melodious voice of State Senator Rubén Díaz Sr rumbles across the congregation at his Bronx church. On weekdays, it echoes across the Senate chamber as he rails against Medicaid cuts or abortion. Earlier this year, it enthralled thousands at a boisterous rally against same-sex marriage.

But ask him about the gay people in his own life, and Mr. Díaz’s voice grows quiet. His smile vanishes.

Two of his brothers are gay, he murmurs, one of them recently deceased. So is a granddaughter. There is an old friend who works for him in the Senate. And a former campaign aide.

“I love them. I love them,” says Mr. Díaz, who grew up one of 17 children in Puerto Rico. “But I don’t believe in what they are doing. They are my brothers. They are my family.”

His voice rises again. “So how could I be a homophobe?”

Right. And moving forward:

He was forced to resign from the city’s Civilian Complaint Review Board years ago for suggesting that the Gay Games would encourage homosexuality and spread H.I.V. In 2003, he sued the city to shut down a high school for gay and transgender students.
As advocates push for a vote on same-sex marriage in the State Senate on Tuesday, Mr. Díaz is again speaking out, arguing that last week’s election results show that the tide has turned against allowing gay people to wed.
And, given the Democrats’ fragile majority — the party has 32 senators to the Republicans’ 30 — Mr. Díaz’s stubbornness often yields results.
“The people of the nation don’t want gay marriage,” Mr. Díaz said in an interview Monday. “They didn’t want it in California; they didn’t want it in Maine. And the people of upstate New York, after what happened to the candidate in the 23rd Congressional District, they sent a message they don’t want gay marriage. Forget about it. People don’t want it.”
Mr. Díaz argued that the bill legalizing same-sex marriage should not be allowed to come to the floor, saying the Legislature has more important issues to attend to.

And the best part:

“My religion doesn’t allow me to dance,” he said. “But that does not mean I don’t go to the party. My religion doesn’t allow me to drink. But that doesn’t mean I can’t hang around with my friends. My religion is against gay marriage. It means, I don’t agree with what you do. But let’s go out. Let’s go to the movies. Let’s be friends.”

For those of Our Readership who ever wondered why Deep Blue NY is having trouble with this rather straightforward social justice issue, well, now you know. And knowing is half the battle, insofar as knowing just exactly who the main douchebags are is always pretty crucial.

This Seemed Like A Good Idea?

2009-11-09T15:12:04-08:00

By Monica_A

I guess all that additional attention from the Secret Service make some people feel real special.

Westboro Baptist Church Organizes Homophobic Anti-Obama Protest Outside Sasha And Malia’s School

American Thinker: War on Left "is coming." Soon. No, Really, Any Time Now, Probably. You Never Know, So Look Out.

2009-11-08T22:50:09-08:00

by va

This is something very special from "The American Thinker," which has been on a quite a tear of late. The Problem, as editor J.R. Dunn spells it out, is that the left just loves terrorism, and terrorists, and thinks that MASS DEATH is just, meh, another one of those things that happens. "This is a historically unique situation," he says, completely different from all those other historical situations in which the left could "never be truly patriotic in the real sense," you know, in the sense of getting yourself up in a star-spangled wetsuit and whacking it to some picture of a demure Betsy Ross in three-quarters profile til you're red, and then blue, and then white in the face. (Auto-patriotic asphyxiation?) Or whatever it is J.R. Dunn does to express his love of country.

Ahem. Dunn (no relation to Anita, we presume) goes on: "Never before would effective treason by a large minority have been tolerated, particularly involving such crucial sectors as media, academia, and education." So please, oh please, tell us about what our forefathers would have done to solve this problem of people who love terror, we're all thinking, Americanly.

So how do we respond? We'll pause here to allow the loud cry of "Hang ‘em all!" to roll over us and commend everyone involved for their enthusiasm, if not their prescription. But what we need, though perhaps not as final, is something effective and workable within with contemporary social norms.

Yes, contemporary social norms you say, this is a good strategy, even if it's a not-quite-final solution. Usually wingnuts are content to stand athwart 1863 yelling stop! but every now and again they venture into contemporary methods of elimination, which is how they stay relevant. To wit: "We yank drunk drivers out of cars; we must also yank leftists out of the public sphere." And then: "The second step is to identify them. Call them out by name, relentlessly and repeatedly." If you're Michelle Malkin, call them out by name, address, place of employment, place of elementary-schooling, whatever. And then "don't bring a knife to a gun fight." This would be sound advice if Dunn or his audience knew what a gun fight looked like. But finally, there's the third step which is to "target them, isolate them and render them harmless." Ohmigod, let us all be very afraid of the little American Thinkers threatening to terrorize the nation at some point, when they get around to it, to save it from terrorists. Methinks J.R. Dunn has consumed too much tea at those parties.

Just Open a Vein

2009-11-08T18:50:57-08:00

The obvious solution. That will ease everyone's worries.

Hey

2009-11-06T22:13:25-08:00

Family emergency. Key-holders, the place is yours for a bit...

There's No Trick to It... It's Just a Simple Trick!

2009-11-06T11:23:20-08:00

One of my very favorite Serious Conservative Commentator games is the one where they have their spite and eat it too. Some nut somewhere says something absurd; Serious Conservative Commenter acknowledges the nuttiness, because he is Very Serious; but because Serious Conservative Commenter is Conservative, he puffs forth a "but yet" and transubstantiates the nuttiness into a Telling Critique of Liberalism. Here is Father James Geraghty solemnly performing this everyday miracle:

Like Robert George, I was a little thrown when I saw President Obama giving a "shout-out" to somebody in the audience, moments before he discussed the Fort Hood shooting. Like Jonah, I'm not sure this is something worth making too much fuss about; Obama will do worse things during his presidency than make some off-key remarks right before offering his first comments on a national outrage.

But I'll note something mildly troubling about this, and it relates to something I've discussed with a few other righties lately. Back during the campaign, Joe Biden had said that Obama was going to be tested early in his presidency. Some might see the Iranian protests as his first test, or North Korea's increasingly regular missile launches, or the looming and seemingly ever-delayed decision on Afghanistan.Yet all of these events have seemed far away and fairly distant from the day-to-day life of average Americans.

Yesterday's horrific shooting, with the ever-rising number of dead and wounded, was one of the few days this year where you felt the need to get to a television and stay updated on a rapidly developing crisis. Inevitably, life will offer more of these moments, and next time it may be more than one individual with murder on their mind.

When the next crisis greets President Obama, I don't want him to drop the ball. Our friends on the left keep telling us about his great temperament, and feel certain he'll rise to the occasion in the face of hard calls, where time is of the essence, that would leave many men whimpering. I hope they're right.

But right now the early indicators are a bit ominous. We're two months past the request for more troops in Afghanistan, and still waiting for a decision. The next decision might be, "Mr. President, that unresponsive passenger jet is two minutes away from a heavily-populated area. But we can't confirm a hijacking, it might just be some unresponsive equipment. The National Guard pilots are awaiting your order to shoot it down."

It's not that big a deal, totally insignificant... BUT YET (abraca-pocus!) it is PROOF THAT OMIGOD OBAMA IS GOING TO LET THE TERRORISTS KILL US! SHRIEK!

Besides that, the Ft. Hood killings are not the first mass killings to take place in the US during the Obama presidency. Why, not a mile from where I sit right now, there was a mass killing. But this apparently did not constitute a "test," and neither did that bit of fun with the Somali pirates, and so forth, because this cute little idiotic gotcha didn't happen to occur to Geraghty at the time. Or, more likely, it did, and he's just recycling, but I can't be bothered to look it up. Suffice it to say that Obama is obviously -- OMIGOD HERE COMES A PLANEFUL OF TERRORISTS SHRIEK.

MORE. Oh the sins of Obama! From the American Thinker, the most hilariously misnamed publication in the entire history of everything:

When he finally got around to the purpose for his public appearance, he gave an uninspired and rambling dissertation on the tragedy. Even then, he could not keep the topic focused on sympathy for the pain of others:
I want all of you to know that as Commander in Chief, that there's no greater honor, but no greater responsibility for me (emphasis his) than to make sure that the extraordinary men and women in uniform are properly cared for...

Poor soul, it's so saddening to know how this tragedy affects him. Listening to this address provides some insight into Obama's character and how he ranks his priorities.

There's that uppity black fellow again, talking about himself like he's the president of the United States or something. How gauche.

MAS! Let the douche rumpus start...

There is Nothing Worse Than an Undetermined Person

2009-11-06T06:48:29-08:00

Red State's Moe Lane: the King of Incomprehensible Snark. His is an odd little realm, where, say, if he forgets to check the toilet paper before taking a dump, he'll sit there after he's done, all crusty & smelly, on his throne, as it were, yelling out in a 4th-grade "neener neener" voice, "oh yeah! Well, OBAMA wants STALIN to wipe HIS ass! HAHAHA! I'm sitting here in my OWN SHIT! The failure of Liberalism is CLEAR! Chortle laugh giggle." And all the while he's plucking dingleberries the size of dashboard dice. What I'm saying is, Moe Lane is weird.

Anyhow, Kool Moe Dumb:

Sen Roland Burris (D-IL) advocates death penalty for non-insured!
From a CNS interview (H/T: Instapundit):
CNSNews.com: “So, in general, if a person doesn’t want health insurance, do you think they should be required by the government to actually have to get it?”

Senator Burris: “Under state law, we have every one required to have automobile insurance. Now, think about that.

Sure, let’s. You see, ‘under state law’ people are not actually required to have automobile insurance: people are required to have automobile insurance if they want to own a car. So, either this is not a good analogy - which means that Senator Roland Burris is dumber than soap - or it is a good analogy; which would mean that he thinks that people should be required to have insurance if they want to stay alive. Heaven forbid that I suggest that any sitting Senator could possibly be about as sharp as a sack of wet mice, so I am forced to assume that he’s ready to have the willfully non-insured executed for their crimes.

This would be astonishingly stupid, if it weren't Moe Lane snarking it, which makes it just garden variety dumb. But what the hey.

If you choose to have a car, which lots and lots of Americans have no choice about, especially in The Heartland (MollyI&I live on top of a mountain, quite literally, & can't escape the need for a car to get to work), you have to buy insurance. Why? Because if there were no mandate to buy auto insurance, we'd all be fucked, that's why. Only very very rich people could ever afford to pay the real costs of even a medium-bad auto accident out of pocket, and those costs always have to be paid. So, the risk must be pooled -- or almost nobody would be able to afford to drive. This is not fucking Stalinism, it's just like that, and that's the way it is.

People who "choose" not to have health insurance now are not by and large Going Galt in the spirit of Rugged Individualism. No -- they just can't afford it. And here is where Moe Lane is especially a dick: RIGHT NOW, if you don't have health insurance, and you're an American citizen, you may very well have trouble staying alive. And good for you, Individualist! But, like, we're all still going to pay for your healthcare -- one way or the other. It is only the most blessed among us who can afford the immense costs of dying in America in a cool, offhand fashion. Most of us, we go broke. Which is what we died for at Bunker Hill, dammit, only on the installment plan.

Indeed, the whole fucking point of instituting a system where everyone is insured is to keep us from all individually going broke and to drive down costs.

If you want to stay alive and yet don't want health insurance you are what is known in The Business as a crazy asshole.

Feh.

Question of the day

2009-11-05T17:58:20-08:00

by flory

Why does Michael Steele always look like his suit is two sizes too big? Is it because his head is so tiny in relation to his trunk?

Or does he pad the shoulders of his jackets to look all broad shouldered and manly and republican?

Inquiring minds want to know.

"Douched Earth Politics": Erick Erickson, Groundbreaker!

2009-11-04T00:31:58-08:00

Like most people in the country who knew there were elections today, which most people in the country didn't, I've been following tonight's election results with intense interest.

As a pinko, I am sad! I'm bitterly crushed that Jim Corzine lost, as he really was crucially poised to seize the world-historical moment & establish the New Jersey Dictatorship of the Proletariat, with soviets springing up from Weehawken to Passaic... and beyond.

It's also a shame that an equally way-out-there left-wing extremist, Dede Scozzafava, got headfirst dunked by the teabaggers -- I guess she realized she was headed for a similar fate as her identical ideological soulmate, Rosa Luxemburg, and just called it a day. And who can blame her, once Glenn Beck gets involved? But fortunately Bill Owens, the world-historical victor, is ideologically sound, and will be a loyal comrade in the struggle to crush the industrialist parasites, as Obama Husseinovich commands. And even if he isn't we can always exile him to Siberia. Or Plattsburgh, where there's less to do and the weather's less balmy.

Anyhow it's always been clear and not at all crazy that ACORN dominates the upstate New York Republican party and has done so since, uh, Joseph of Arimathea founded the Knights Templar somewhere just outside Keeseville in order to mandate the flouridization of municipal water supplies. Those crafty fuckers.

It's all very confusing, but fortunately while everyone else is losing their heads Erick Erickson is able to find his ass, or perhaps his elbow, or possibly Shinola:
The race has now been called for Democrat Bill Owens.

This is a huge win for conservatives.

“Whaaaa. . . ?” you say.

Heh. I was actually making a fart noise.
There are two big victories at work in New York’s 23rd Congressional District.

Like, besides the one for the Democratic candidate in the official election?
First, the GOP now must recognize it will either lose without conservatives or will win with conservatives.

But didn't the GOP just lose with conservatives...?
In 2008, many conservatives sat home instead of voting for John McCain. Now, in NY-23, conservatives rallied and destroyed the Republican candidate the establishment chose.

I have said all along that the goal of activists must be to defeat Scozzafava. Doug Hoffman winning would just be gravy. A Hoffman win is not in the cards, but we did exactly what we set out to do — crush the establishment backed GOP candidate.

And make no mistake, despite the Beltway spin, we know for certain based on statements from the local Republican parties, that they chose Scozzafava based on advice from the Washington crowd.

So the point is that the until the national GOP stops supporting moderates who can win in moderate districts by being moderate, Erick Erickson will make these moderates lose by supporting a crazy extremist who's probably going to lose. Erick Erickson is the guy with no hair or eyebrows who has yet to learn why when you employ scorched-earth tactics, the classical advice is to not then stand around picking your nose in the middle of the cornfield.
So we have demonstrated to the GOP that it must not take conservatives for granted.
We are assholes, hear us poop.
The GOP spent $900,000.00 on a Republican who dropped out and endorsed the Democrat.
"I borrowed your Lexus and drove it into the Gowanus Canal. You're such a dork. You really need to give me the keys to all your other cars, and your house, fuckface."
Were we to combine Scozzafava and Hoffman’s votes, Hoffman would have won.
Were you to have shut the fuck up, a GOP district since the Civil War would still be represented by a Republican.
Secondly, and just as importantly, there has all of a sudden been a huge movement among some activists to go the third party route. We see in NY-23 that this is not possible as third parties are not viable.
Uh... Erickson does not understand New York politics at all. To call an NY party like the Conservative Party, or the Working Families Party for that matter, a "third party," is just wrong. It actually strikes me that a failure to understand the basics of the NY system is responsible for a lot of the weird stuff that has been said and done about this race. Fortunately I'm too tired to explain this, or I'd feel obligated to do so. But this single comment from the Son of Erick is, well, telling. Political movements fail when they can't account for local realities, and when political movements are run by people as dumb as Erickson, this problem is only exacerbated (look it up, Erick, I know it's a hard word).
For all intents and purposes, NY-23 is a trial run for Florida. And in Florida, the conservative candidate is operating inside the GOP. If John Cornyn and the NRSC do not want to see Florida go the way of NY-23, they better stand down.
John Cornyn vs. Erick Erickson in a battle of the crazies in the Sunshine State! I know who I'm rooting for (and who I'd bet against, for that matter).
Maybe it's time to rechristen the term "scorched earth politics" to "douched earth politics." And here you thought Erick Erickson could not be innovative. Sucks to be you!

God Bless You, Continue to Speak

2009-11-03T08:38:44-08:00

Watching Bob Menendez tonight on The Daily Show, I'm reminded of this bit of Biblical Wisdom:
It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a Senator to speak in public and not sound like a douche.
Maybe I'm misremembering that, but it's still frickin' true.

One Wonders...

2009-11-02T08:56:57-08:00

... to what extent you have to be either deliberately or genuinely thick in order to write Official Media Criticism. Take this headline, please:
If Fox Is Partisan, It Is Not Alone

My balls. Fox is the only entire news network with a partisan agenda. Every other network plays by different rules. This is not a very difficult point to grasp, unless you have Official Media Criticism to dribble out for the New York Times.

This is a very stupid article. See if you can spot the logical flaw in how John Harwood draws the conclusion that "partisan fragmentation throughout America’s news media and their audiences has grown significantly" based upon Statistical Evidence (and note also how Harwood, toolishly, is passing on the spin of these data thrown, in the manner of a spitball, by a Republican strategist):
In audience surveys from August 2000 to March 2001, Fox News viewers tilted Republican by 44.6 percent to 36.1 percent. More narrowly — 41.4 percent to 39.4 percent — so did the audience for MSNBC. The audiences of CNN, Headline News, CNBC and Comedy Central leaned Democratic.

Four years later, amid the Iraq war and President George W. Bush’s re-election campaign, the audience data had shifted. Fox News viewers had become 51 percent Republican and just 30.8 percent Democratic, while MSNBC viewers leaned Democratic by 41.7 percent to 40.4 percent. Viewers of CNN, Headline News, CNBC and Comedy Central grew slightly more Democratic.

By 2008-9, the network audiences tilted decisively, like Fox’s. CNN viewers were more Democratic by 50.4 percent to 28.7 percent; MSNBC viewers were 53.6 percent to 27.3 percent Democratic; Headline News’ 47.3 percent to 31.4 percent Democratic; CNBC’s 46.9 percent to 32.5 percent Democratic; and Comedy Central’s 47.1 to 28.8 percent Democratic.
Comedy Central, one will note, is not in fact a news network. and so one may wonder just what the fuck it's doing here in a statistical breakdown of the partisan leanings of "America's news media and their audiences."
The answer of course is that including it makes a tendentious conclusion smell better; but still, its inclusion serves admirably to demonstrate that tendentiousness.
Because it does not take two, or more, to "polarize." It takes one. Fox gleefully went full metal GOP, and by and large other networks remained "objective" and "nonpartisan," according to the very strange interpretation of such concepts on the part of the media elites.
This was -- and largely remains -- the American media landscape when it comes to teevee news: one entirely partisan news/opinion/poo-flinging network, and then everything else is Village property, with the exception of three cable opinion shows (Olbermann, Maddow, and whatshisface), and then... uh, The Daily Show... a fake news program on a comedy network. And then Colbert. And that's it. (Moreover, it is worth remembering that MSNBC did not decide to go "partisan left" -- Olbermann did -- and Jon Stewart became a "liberal" opinion monger largely by default, in the sense that all he's ever really done is point out that the American right constantly makes up silly lies and is allowed to get away with it, which is "partisanship" in the sense that "recognizing the obvious" is "socialism." And also, remember, Olbermann is "balanced" by Scarborough, and Comedy Central tried hard at first to "balance" Stewart with that horrendous abortion of a Colin Quinn program, which was entertaining in the sense that your horrible sputtering drunken asshole uncle is entertaining when he gives you a hug right after he calls you a fag.)
If the viewership numbers have shifted, this is pretty much entirely because of Fox. Fox viewers are convinced that every other media outlet is involved in a dark socialist conspiracy to destroy America (and that is not even exaggeration for comic effect), the Main Stream Media pretends the socialist conspiracy theory is One Side of the Story, and anyone who wants actual news, Lord help them, is fucked.
Hence this, from Harwood, is bullshit:
partisan fragmentation throughout America’s news media and their audiences has grown significantly. Future Republican presidents will have to decide, as Team Obama has, how to buck or accommodate that trend.
No, they won't. They will not face a liberal equivalent of Fox. What they will do is not a mystery. They will pretend every other network besides Fox is "partisan," they will denounce The Media, and the Media will flog themselves over their imaginary offenses against imaginary "heartland voters," and the only news opinion shows worth watching will be on comedy stations.

Abusing the Signal

2009-10-31T23:43:18-07:00

Funny.
Adam Kirsch reviews Anne C. Heller's new Ayn Rand biography in this weekend's Book Review. His piece offers this nugget about John Galt's long radio address in the novel Atlas Shrugged:
A Random House editor told Rand that "if she gave up 7 cents per copy in royalties, she could have the extra paper needed to print Galt's oration."

Kirsch calls the agreement a "sign of the great contradiction that haunts her writing," observing that "giving up her royalties to preserve her vision is something that no genuine capitalist . . . would have done."

But Rand's decision to exchange money — a portion of her royalties — for extra paper is capitalism at work. Rand bought something that had financial value to her: the ability to disseminate her idea in the form she desired.

Without such an elegant capitalist mechanism through which to make this trade, the alternative solution would have been messy and unsatisfying. Rand would have had to give up part of Galt's speech or try to find a new publisher.
Well, when you want solid expertise on the economics of publishing tedious unreadable right-wing bullshit nobody would ever pay for straight-up on the actual market even if they were drunk or insane or threatened at gunpoint, where else would you go but the National Review?

Whiskey Fire Book Club

2009-10-31T07:52:51-07:00

By Monica_A
You must read "The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power" by Jeff Sharlet. Once you have read this book, the past eight years will make sense. The banality of Bush. Scary, but informative.

Shh... Don't speak - just savor the moment

2009-10-30T13:47:00-07:00

by Ripley
This leads to this, which states this:
Here’s the thing — if we make Earl Pomeroy’s [D-ND -- ed.] life extremely painful for the next week, Republicans are going to think twice about jumping ship and so will a lot of the Blue Dog Democrats.

This fine dog poop can be shipped to Earl Pomeroy at

Office of Congressman Earl Pomeroy
3003 32nd Ave S Suite 6
Fargo, ND 58103

Likewise, you can tie up his phone lines by calling (701) 224-0355 and then (202) 225-2611 to express your dissatisfaction.

*Note: if you use our link, I can track the orders sent and Amazon kicks back some cash to RedState too! A win-win.

Rip -

Instadouche Link Bait

2009-10-30T11:11:32-07:00

Hugo Chavez's poodle, Barry Obama, coldly employs Chicago-style politics in [*enter outrage du jour here* HONDURAS] as he cowardly appeases America's enemies and stabs our friends in the back. Yet another foreign policy disaster for the One, like when he bowed to the Emperor of Saudi Arabia, gave the Queen of England porno DVDs, and grabbed Santa's crotch on live teevee. Wonder what his TELEPROMPTER thinks! LOL! Gateway has more as does Fausta, Allah, and that douche over at Cornell.
Seriously, as an Intellectually Honest Liberal, even I can say it was Very Wrong for Obama to crush the democratically elected government of Honduras with an armed invasion, nuclear strikes, and economic sanctions, and then turn the country over to the harsh tyranny of Hugo Chavez's jackbooted thugs, who had all the leaders of the so-called "coup" shot, and then all the rich people in Honduras stripped of their worldly possessions, doused with honey, and devoured by fire ants.
Because that''s, like, what happened? I haven't been paying close attention to the goings-on in this particular Fruit-hatted Lesser American nation, but skimming the right-wing reaction, it sure sounds like it!

Meet the new Coke

2009-10-29T11:09:55-07:00

by Ripley

Remember the other day when you were mumbling/texting/Twitterfying to yourself, "Hey, it's today! What stupid thing could Erick Erickson possibly have to say to us?" and you sat there and waited and nobody raised their hand so you thought, "Hmmm, maybe he didn't say anything stupid today."? Not so fast, Brain-o!
Turns out, Erick the only begotten son of Erick was test marketing his bad self in a manner most inappropriate and self-aggrandizing: (h/t to the Goon Squad at Shorts and Pants)

By the time you read this, a lot of ink and air time will have been spent on this Politico article suggesting that the Republicans tremble when conservatives like Rush, Hannity, Beck, or even me says something.

Give me just a moment here... OK. Um, really, Erick? Republicans tremble when you say something? I had no idea. But hey, I'm a magnanimous motherfucker and I'm willing to give a fellow blogger the benefit of the doubt, so let's check out that Politico article... shall we?
Congressional leaders talk in private of being boxed in by commentators such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh — figures who are wildly popular with the conservative base but wildly controversial among other parts of the electorate, and who have proven records of making life miserable for senators and House members critical of their views or influence.

OK, I see your Limbaugh and your Beck there... let's double check and... nope, don't see any mention of "ERICK ERICKSON" anywhere in that paragraph. Oh, I know! CTR + F with my Firefox intertwangatron viewmaster device! Huh... there's your Hannity, down there at the bottom... still no mention of "ERICK ERICKSON", though.
This is certainly odd. If I didn't know better, I'd think Erick Erickson was just making up stories about how he was totally at that huge party with all the cool kids and OMG! he was so wasted!! And totally got laid! What? He's laid plenty! Girlfriend, Canada, etc.
But perhaps I judge too harshly. Upon further reading, we see that Erick is a true team player. After all, there's no "I" in RedState, right?
This is all coordinated. Harry Reid does not have the votes. And Obama is now determined to split the GOP. The best way to do that is to play to their vanity — accuse the Republicans of being Rush Limbaugh’s boot lickers. How do they prove otherwise? They vote for the public option and prove they aren’t tools of tea party activists, talk radio guys, and RedState bloggers.

RedState bloggers, yes. Perhaps the most feared and respected voices on the... wait a minute. Skippity flippity Hell, let's check that article again! CTR + F, ho! Oh... that's sad. Once again, Firefox has failed to find any mention of "ERICK ERICKSON" or "REDSTATE" in that darned Politico piece. Maybe it's my computer but I can't even find the word "blogger" in that article.
Well, shit... Now I'm right back to my original hypothesis, i.e., Erick Erickson is a self-aggrandizing ass clown trying to ride the coattails of real, actual media personalities in an effort to make himself appear relevant and possibly important. I know, it sounds crazy but...
Sometimes the internets just make me sad. Oh, wait! Rock salt! Yay, relevance! and what have you...

[Update] - Artist's conception? It goes a little something like this.

Rip -

Blogger's Union Fight Song

2009-10-27T23:52:04-07:00

One of the genuine problems the right wing has going forward that the Conservative Movement ought to contemplate, but won't, is that the people spearheading their resurgence are stupid assholes. Erick Son of Erick, for instance, is about as intelligent as a fucking dirt-clod, and that's all he anyhow has to throw.

Here the Son of Erick burbles about how Liberal Bloggers were Very Silly for going after Joe Lieberman in a primary.
Thank you lefty bloggers so very much for primarying Joe Lieberman and helping him be bold enough to shaft you.

The reason Joe Lieberman got targeted in a primary is that he's not now and has never ever been a reliable liberal vote on anything that matters to us. In other words, he got targeted because he had, and has, a very clear tendency to support the Other Side whenever it comes to anything important.

But whatever. Debate the wisdom of a certain move by the Left Base, if you will. But don't so it while you're waging a fucking jihad against GOP Moderates, lest ye look look like at best a crowlin ferlie, and at worst a shithead. (That last link is et passim, of course. It also shows a rather spectacular ignorance of NY state politics.)

It is also worth pointing out that one of the key differences between the Left Base and the Right Base is that the Left Base isn't barking loony. On healthcare, it really is true that every other Western Democracy has tons more governmental involvement in doctoring than the US does, and yet none of these countries are run by Totalitarian Despots. Norway and Blade Runner are different. Norway has better healthcare. Even Scotland is no dystopia! The Left Base admits this; the Right Base squeals "socialism" and pees themselves.
Sigh...

And then there is this. I've been trying to cope with the awesome idiocy involved in Erick Erickson trying to explicate a Great Book written by Jonah Goldberg... it wearies the soul.
As you may know, RedState has started a Great Books style program. We are rather slowly making our way through a series of books on conservative thought and ideas. We have started with Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism.
When Jonah Goldberg's Great Ideas are going too fast for you, shoot yourself.
“Contrary to his relentless assertions in Mein Kampf, Hitler had no great foundational ideas or ideological system. His genius lay in the realization that people wanted to rally to ideas and symbols. . . . Time and again in Mein Kampf, Hitler makes it clear that he believed his greatest gift to the party wasn’t his ideas but his ability to speak,” Goldberg writes. I’m reminded of that story Harry Reid tells about Obama where Obama said he, Obama, had a gift. “A real gift, Harry,” he said. It was oration.
This is not to make an Obama=Hitler comparison.
Yes it is. That's why you made it.
It is just to note that like most good demagogues, Hitler and Obama both know the public is more interested in the silver tongue and the Greco-Roman columns as a backdrop than they are in the substantive policy positions.
So Hitler = Obama. Reagan knew "this" too, but let's not mention him. Or any other fucking politician ever. Ha ha! You are eloquent and have stagecraft! You know that most people are not conversant with intricate policy issues like tariffs and such! JUST LIKE HITLER!
That, perhaps, more than anything is the take away from Chapter 2 of Liberal Fascism. Hitler stood for nothing except hatred of the Jews. He was happy to do or say anything to get elected so long as it meant extermination of the Jews and a bolstering of the Germany self.
Lebensraum? Crushing Weimar parliamentary democracy? Rearmament? Reoccupation of the Ruhr? Repudiating Versailles? "The Germany self"? Is Erick Erickson really this baby-brained?
What is also worth nothing is that contrary to left-wing myth about corporatism and the Nazis, derived in part because of the rivalry between communism and nazism, when the Nazis did put out public policy positions, they were right out of the progressive left.
The Social Democrats always wanted to put forward the Nuremberg laws, then, but never got around to it in the 1920s? The Social Democrats wanted to deep-six parliamentary democracy in exchange for the Leadership Principle? The Social Democrats were the prime movers in favor of expropriating Jewish businesses and firing Jewish professors? It was the "progressive left" in Germany in the 1920s that let Hitler out of prison after attempting what was clearly armed treason?
Erick Erickson is pig-ignorant. So is Jonah Goldberg, for that matter. But Erickson is even dumber, Lord Preserve Us:
Jonah does a great job showing that Nazism was distinct from Mussolini’s Fascism and where Mussolini derived much of his platform from his own thinking, Hitler built on existing ideas and, frankly, used leftwing ideas more for filler so he wasn’t just campaigning on the extermination of Jews.
Even accepting the "logic" here, the fact that Hitler never really believed any of that left wing hooey is supposed to be evidence that Hitler was a Man of the Left...? How does that work?
Oh but what am I even saying. Erick Erickson and Jonah Goldberg are very, very stupid people. Gah! Gah! Gah!