Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Classic]

She can't do the penitent sinner schtick here, because that is already kind of her schtick, see the various obnoxious brayings about her "being a witch".

[Mongrel]

"Can we burn her?"








Sorry.









Well no, not really.

[Classic]

Whenever I feel like I should have sympathy or pity for her, it makes me feel really bad because I'm pretty sure it's me being a patronizing misogynist.

[Brentai]

Okay, well, has this story been verified by a source that's not a liberal activist blog?

[Beat Bandit]

It's been verified by a dozen responses from her PR team, none of which were "that didn't happen".

[Mongrel]

Also, the photos kind of make it a lot more legit than a random story. You could always argue "Photoshop!", but as has just been pointed out, she hasn't really denied it anyway.

[Royal☭]

Well, now I don't know what to think.

As long as you are thinking, really.

[Brentai]

I hope she gets elected anyway.  That's four years of a Tea Party frontperson who will be shot right the fuck down the moment she ever even dares to touch on social agenda.

[Beat Bandit]

When you get stomped on by a political rival, make stompade.
Stop Rand Paul on Election Day

[Royal☭]

I hope she gets elected anyway.  That's four years of a Tea Party frontperson who will be shot right the fuck down the moment she ever even dares to touch on social agenda.

That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.  People can realize how stupid her ideas on social and economic policy are without having to endure her.  You seem to repeating this thing lately about how you think these people must be elected just so everyone can see how ridiculous they are.  Which isn't really valid considering the 8 years prior to the Dems taking the government.  We can tell how ridiculous and epically stupid they are without having to give them the ability to guide legislation.

[Brentai]

The polls do not seem to agree with you on that one.

And let's face it, we had to get Obama into office before we realized he was kind of an impotent rube.  That's just how it goes.

[Royal☭]

And let's face it, we had to get Obama into office before we realized he was kind of an impotent rube.  That's just how it goes.

That's kind of a false equivalency, though.  We're unhappy with Obama because he's doing things he said he wouldn't do, and not doing things he said he would.  I'm not willing to risk 6 years of Christine O'Donnell in the hopes that she doesn't mean what she says.

[Mongrel]

I think the thinking there is something along the lines of "Fine, you're too stupid to understand why this is bad? Okay let's race to the bottom as fast as we can. Then you'll see. Then we'll all see."

The belief is that people are too stupid to learn without visceral and sustained experience and that only a horrible crisis will "teach people", that as a group, people always have to learn the hard way.

It's possible that thinking is right - the jury's still out on that one. But even if it is, you just can't encourage it. Because the problem with that line of reasoning is that it effectively duplicates the same reasoning that precipitates crises so great they don't just bring down leaders or political parties, but entire governments and ways of life.   

[Brentai]

My thinking is more along the lines of "The main thing keeping the Tea Party in check is the extremely stupid and unlikable people they have out as frontmen."  Keeping one or two of them in the public eye (Rand Paul RAND PAUL RAND PAUL) will make it harder for the rest of them to silently be complete fuckshits.  And as I said, in this case the person we're enduring would be a complete cripple in the realm of "let's enforce our crazy standards on people", and may even drive some moderates left in 2012 when the stakes are slightly higher.

It's always distasteful to think of politics as a game of Chess, but the cold reality is you have to sacrifice some pawns sometimes.

[Classic]

I'm not sure that's a winning strategy, though.
The dissatisfaction of the base and moderates seems to be from not getting the progressive results they wanted. The liberals not being liberal enough.
Maybe I'm watching too much daily show.

[Brentai]

Which is why I almost look forward to the next two years; there's no way they can possibly do any of the shit they promised, and in 2012 they're going to have to stand there impotently and keep leaning on the same argument that this is all somehow the liberals' fault.

Also, I benefit from a recession, so have fun.

[Classic]

keep leaning on the same argument that this is all somehow the liberals' fault.

If it ain't broke.

Also, I hate you and your job security. So much.

[Mongrel]

On the subject of Liberals not being liberal enough (with some tangeantial relation to the subject at hand).

One of the biggest snowjobs of the past thirty years is how the hyperrich have so successfully sold the idea that everyday people can join their ranks by allowing as much laissez-fair deregulation as possible. Until it becomes inescapably clear that this is a fat load of complete bullshit, the left will be trapped into paying (at the very least) lip service to right-wing extremists. Even though it's a complete fabrication, killing the 'dream' is political suicide.

Over-educated folks always bring up statistics or other data that demonstrate the middle class is eroding and standards of living are declining, but as much as people claim things are harder, it's not being felt on a truly visceral level yet. so as scary as the numbers are, there's little political effect. The middle (and working) classes are stressed and worn, but have managed to (barely) hold on to the same lifestyles as they had 30 years ago by sacrificing things in other areas: Reduced long-term security (pensions, job security), the two-income household being normalized, bigger workloads, cheaper, more disposable products, and vastly increased indebtedness (with the last one being the real killer). I'd say we're reaching the limits of that squeezing, but who knows maybe things can get worse still without actually crashing?

I suspect it is only when (or if!) the Great Robber Baron con job of the late 20th century has been completely exposed that you will see a resurgence of true old-fashioned populist leftism (whether or not you think that's a good thing is another question). The problem is of course that (probably) the only way it will become inescapably clear is for a fiscal disaster to take place that dwarfs the Great Recession* (I laugh every time anyone uses that ridiculous term). But if we do reach a point where there's a massive crash, rather than the current generational erosion, all bets will be off.

* Really the recession represents the moment that the Government finally and wholly bought the same stupid rationalizations that individuals have been swallowing for three decades. So the same behaviour resulted: The rules weren't really changed, a ludicrous sum of money was spent just to hang on to the status quo with our fingernails and wealthy folks somehow wound up with a giant pile of someone else's money. Even the Clinton administration manged to hold some vestige of skepticism, however marginal.

[Thad]

First problem with Brent's reasoning is, Christine O'Donnell has no shot at getting elected.  She never did.  Going with the politics-as-chess meme, I've always wanted to explore primaries as exercises in minmaxing -- and the Tea Party has thrown the game completely out of whack.  They've picked, in this case and in some others, candidates who have no shot at winning in a general election.

Which is why I almost look forward to the next two years; there's no way they can possibly do any of the shit they promised

After the Bush Administration, there's little I won't believe either in terms of what the Republicans will push or what the Democrats will allow.

I basically draw the line at Constitutional amendments -- and, granted, amending the Constitution (to repeal #14, #16, and #17) IS a plank in the Tea Party Platform.  But I do think they can do some damage.

And I don't really see much benefit in keeping O'Donnell out there front-and-center -- as Bill Maher said, she's really just a nicer version of Sarah Palin.  She's dumb but she's not mean (even if her views are).

Sharron Angle is probably a better example of a situation where we can afford to lose somebody -- partly because she actually stands a chance of winning, and partly because I just hate Harry Reid that much.  Of course, there's always the possibility that the Democrats will, in their infinite wisdom, pick an even WORSE leader.  (I got to thinking, the other day, about whether Reid or Daschle was worse.  Ultimately I have to go with Daschle, because allowing us to get into the Iraq War is the single biggest failure of the Democratic Party in my lifetime.)

and in 2012 they're going to have to stand there impotently and keep leaning on the same argument that this is all somehow the liberals' fault.

That IS part of what happened in '06 -- the evangelicals realized they'd been sold a bill of goods with the half-assed attempt at an anti-gay marriage amendment in '04 -- but I think it was more that the moderates were sick of the war, sick of corruption, and sick of Bush.

keep leaning on the same argument that this is all somehow the liberals' fault.

If it ain't broke.

Yeah, ask the Democrats how well "The reason we haven't done the shit we said we would is because these guys keep saying no all the time" works as a campaign slogan.

[Classic]

That's a false analogy. Republicans as a party give the illusion of understanding politics and campaigns from time-to-time.