Tag Archives: Ron Paul

Generic, but no actual, Repugnican beats Obama in the polls

It’s interesting: A majority of those Americans polled recently say that President Hopey-Changey doesn’t deserve a second term (he doesn’t), but when Barack Obama is pitted against the Repugnican Tea Party front runners — when the choice is made much more real — suddenly a second Obama term apparently doesn’t seem so bad after all.

An Associated Press-GfK nationwide poll taken December 8 through December 12, for instance, found that 52 percent believe that Obama should be voted out of office in November 2012, while only 43 percent believe that he should be re-elected.

The same poll, however, found that only 42 percent would vote for Newt Gingrich, while 51 percent would vote for Obama over Gingrich. The same poll found that Obama barely would beat Mitt Romney, 47 percent to 46 percent.

A Reuters/Ipsos nationwide poll also taken December 8 through December 12 similarly found that Obama would beat Gingrich, 51 percent to 38 percent, and that Obama would beat Romney, 48 percent to 40 percent.

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal nationwide poll taken December 7 through December 11 found that 45 percent said they probably will vote for the Repugnican Tea Party presidential candidate in November 2012, while only 43 percent said they probably would vote for Obama.

Yet in the same poll, Gingrich garnered only 40 percent to Obama’s 51 percent, and Obama beat Romney by a hair, 47 percent to 45 percent. (Also in that poll, Obama soundly beat Ron Paul, 50 percent to 37 percent).

A USA Today/Gallup nationwide poll taken December 6 and 7 had similar findings: Obama barely beat Romney, 47 percent to 46 percent, and beat Gingrich definitively, 50 percent to 44 percent.

Yet a CBS News nationwide poll taken December 5 through December 7 found that 54 percent believe that Obama should not be re-elected, while only 41 percent believe that he should be.

What gives?

Well, for one thing, it’s incorrect to assume that only those who lean to the right believe that Obama shouldn’t be re-elected. I’m a foaming-at-the-mouth leftist, but if a pollster were to ask me whether President Hopey-Changey deserves a second term, my answer would be Oh, hell no. (The Wall-Street-coddling, war-mongering, Constitution-violating Barack Obama is a “socialist”? I wish!)

Obama & Co. have alienated the “professional,” “sanctimonious” left, very apparently craving the votes of the “swing voters” more than the votes of the actual left. Of course, give the “swing voters” the choice between an actual Repugnican and a Democrat who acts like a Repugnican (President Hopey-Changey, for instance, can’t sing the right wing’s icon Ronald Reagan’s praises enough), and they will vote for the actual Repugnican, but in November 2012 we will find out how smart Team Obama’s strategy of shitting and pissing all over its base has been.

It seems clear that Mitt Romney has the best chance of unseating Obama, but it remains to be seen whether the Repugnican Tea Party voters will focus on ideological purity or on general-election electability in their primaries and caucuses that are to begin shortly.

I remember the fight for the 2004 Democratic Party presidential nomination: Those who focused on ideological purity supported Howard Dean, while those who focused on electability (like I did) supported John Kerry (who, in my estimation, still did better against George W. Bush than Dean would have; I love ideological purity, but to me at the time, preventing a second disastrous term of the treasonous, unelected BushCheneyCorp was more important than was ideological purity).

We’ll see whether the Repugnican Tea Party set will choose their Howard Dean or their John Kerry, so to speak. If they choose Gingrich (or even Ron Paul), then Obama’s re-election is fairly assured.

If they wisely choose Romney, however (I say “wisely” because the point of elections is to win them, not because I have any love for Romney [I’d never vote for an active Mormon for any office, since they’re all theocrats who answer to the cabal of evil old white men in Salt Lake City]), then, the polls indicate, it will be a close presidential race.

And Team Obama might just find out that its strategy of believing that those of us on the left have nowhere else to go was fucking suicidal, because, it seems to me, if we leftists withhold our support of Obama, as I am doing (I’m not giving him my vote or a fucking penny), Mitt Romney just might win in November 2012.

If a Romney victory means finally teaching the smug Democratic Party establishment sellouts once and for all that no, they cannot shit and piss upon their fucking base without repercussions, then perhaps it would be worth it.*

*Not that I’m holding my breath, of course. Instead of focusing on what an awful, uninspiring, milquetoast presidential campaign Al Gore ran in 2000 — he didn’t even win his home state, for fuck’s sake — the Democratic Party hacks instead blamed (still blame) Green Party candidate Ralph Nader.

History has demonstrated that the pseudo-progressive hacks who call themselves Democrats don’t learn, but only blame actual progressives for their own miserable electoral failures.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Hitchens was an overrated gasbag

Christopher Hitchens, journalist and author of his new memoir "Hitch 22," poses for a portrait outside his hotel in New York

Reuters photo

And only Donald Trump has worse hair than he did.

On Slate.com’s home page right now I count no fewer than twentyfuckingfive pieces about the now-dead pundit Christopher Hitchens.

You know, when Hitchens made himself a prominent cheerleader for the unelected Bush regime’s illegal, immoral, unprovoked and unjust Vietraq War, which unnecessarily has cost thousands and thousands of Iraqi and American lives and (at least) hundreds of billions of dollars, he totally lost me. He was dead to me then, already having lost all respectability.

In his later years, the overrated Hitchens tackled the topic of atheism. Oh, big fucking whoop! Doesn’t just about every pseudointellectual college freshman pontificate about atheism?

The fact that there is no God is self-fucking-evident. Why the need to expound upon it when many others already have done so over the past many decades?

It’s necessary to prevent the theofascists (be they “Christian,” Muslim, Jewish or whatever) from trying to shove their bullshit beliefs down our throats and from otherwise trying to infringe upon our freedoms and liberties (such as the freedom and liberty to marry whomever we please), but other than that, what’s to talk about? God doesn’t exist and neither do dragons, but we don’t write entire books about and otherwise discuss at incredible length the nonexistence of dragons, do we?

(This also goes for Brit pundit Richard Dawkins, who also has made atheism his bread and butter, although he’s much more likeable than Hitchens was.)

It is the fact that he was British-born that gave Hitchens (who became a U.S. citizen in 2007) the air of the intellectual here in the United States, from what I can tell.

Pundit Andrew Sullivan, who like Hitchens did writes in and about the United States, also apparently benefits from having been born in Britain, but he’s just as frequently clueless as was Hitchens. Like Hitchens did, Sullivan supported the obviously woefully misguided (to put it mildly) Vietraq War. (Maybe the British-born Sullivan and Hitchens primarily desperately wanted to demonstrate their Americanness by supporting whatever fucking war the treasonous members of the unelected Bush regime wanted to pull from their treasonous asses using 9/11 as a pretext?)

Sullivan’s latest cluelessness is having endorsed Texas U.S. Rep Ron Paul — another favorite of the pseudointellectual college freshmen — for president of the United States of America, even though Sullivan is gay and Ron Paul is a homophobe as well as a nutjob.

The real story in the death of Christopher Hitchens, it seems to me, is that Americans apparently don’t have faith that there are any homegrown American intellectuals, and that if you’re British-born or use an affected British accent (like the American-born late wingnut William F. Buckley did), a huge number of Americans are going to regard you as fucking brilliant, no matter what stream of fucking stupidity comes out of your mouth.

9 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Time to take out Mitt

Republican presidential candidate former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney speaks during a Republican Presidential Debate at Oakland University in Auburn Hills, Wednesday, Nov. 9, 2011.  (AP Photo/Paul Sancya)

Associated Press photo

This man must never get his mitts on the White House.

Admission: I don’t watch the Repugnican Tea Party presidential debates. I tried to watch one of the early ones. Once. I could stomach only about 15 minutes of the bullshit (I can stand to hear the word “tax” only so many times). Plus, I’m not a Repugnican Tea Party dipshit. Better to be dead than to be a “tea party” dipshit.

So now, I just read about the bullshit that comes out of the debates and watch the clips of the lowlights.

Unsurprisingly, Rick Perry still performs like Porky Pig. He’s dead. He just doesn’t know it yet, apparently. He couldn’t remember the three pro-people federal government departments that as president he would eliminate. Wow. If eliminating these three departments truly were so fucking essential, couldn’t he remember all three of them?

But in recent polls of Repugnican Tea Party dipshits’ presidential favorite, Perry has been coming in behind even Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, even before his Looney Tunes performance of last night. Perry is dead and Herman Cain is terminally ill.

Perry is dead and Herman Cain is terminally ill.

It’s not surprising that the wingnutty members of the debate audience in Michigan last night apparently love the sexual harassment of women or deny that it’s even possible for a “successful” businessman to sexually harass a woman. (Or, of course, the woman had it coming, because she is a slut, and/or she is just a gold digger. That, in a nutshell, is the wingnut narrative on sexual harassment.) In any event, these are patriarchs and pro-patriarchs who hate women.

As is Herman Cain, who during the debate jaw-droppingly referred to U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi as “Princess Nancy.” Because any woman who rises to the level of political power that Nancy Pelosi did — the nation’s first female speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives — must be denigrated. (Speaking of royalty, George W. Bush wasn’t even elected, but was coronated by the U.S. Supreme Court. Surely he was King George.)

The money shot of last night’s debate, in my book, was not Rick Perry’s Porky Pig impression, of which we’d already seen many. The money shot of the debate actually was Herman Cain’s assertion, “The American people deserve better than someone being tried in the court of public opinion based on unfounded accusations.”

If you’re someone who’s asleep and doesn’t really pay attention to the meaning of words, this type of bold-faced propaganda might actually work on you.

The fact of the matter is that every candidate for political office is “tried in the court of public opinion.” Candidates are elected to office based upon the voters’ opinions of the candidates. There is no way around this. Voters’ opinions might be wrong. A good candidate could be mistaken for a poor candidate and vice-versa. Easily.

But by framing it as though it were a criminal trial — and not a campaign for U.S. president — Cain was, as usual, playing the victim, and the misogynist members of the debate audience were aiding and abetting him.

Cain’s no fucking victim. If one or two women had accused him of sexual harassment, maybe. But four? Why would two female employees have been given settlements by the National Restaurant Association if they were 100 percent wrong? And the two women thus far who have gone public to report their sexual harassment at the hands of Cain could be sued for defamation if they were lying. So, if they are lying, as Cain alleges, then what he needs to do is to sue them for defamation. Of course that’s something that he will not do, because he doesn’t want the truth to come out in a court of law. He’s just going to continue to call the women liars and hope that that is enough. (For his misogynist supporters, it is; for those of us who will decide who will win the 2012 presidential election, it is not. Not by a long shot.)

So again, Rick Perry we could write off before last night’s debate, and Cain is dead too, whether he and his misogynist, wingnutty supporters wish to face that fact. Cain perhaps could win office in a red state where women are despised (including by patriarchy-loving, misogynist women, of which there unfortunately are many), but there’s no way in hell that he’ll ever make it to the White House.

Perry’s implosion has boosted Gingrich and Paul in the polls, but they both remain fringe candidates who have no shot at the 2012 Repugnican Tea Party presidential nomination.

Unless he dies or goes comatose, the 2012 Repugnican Tea Party presidential nomination will go to Mitt Romney.

So, as much fun as it has been to jump up and down on the political corpses of Cain and Perry, they are, after all, just corpses. Zombie Romney is still standing, and so now it’s time to focus on taking out him.

I, for one, would never vote for a Mormon. Especially not after the Mormon cult’s support of 2008’s Proposition Hate here in California. The documentary “8: The Mormon Proposition” gives a nice look behind the curtains in Salt Lake City. I don’t want the cabal of stupid old white men who control the Mormon cult influencing the nation through their plant in the White House.

It was an exaggeration to believe that the pope would call the shots were Catholic John F. Kennedy to be elected to the White House. The Catholic cult, after all, is worldwide and is based in Italy. The Mormon cult, however, is much smaller than is the Catholic cult and was made and is headquartered in the U.S.A. It’s much more likely that the Salt Lake City-based Mormon cult would attempt to influence U.S. policy with one of their own in the White House than it ever was that the pope would make JFK his puppet.

If you don’t have a problem with a Mormon president, that’s because (1) you are a Mormon yourself or (2) you know very little about the Mormon cult. Prop Hate entirely aside, I lived among Mormons in Arizona. I know way too much about them. I’d just as soon have the patriarchal, misogynist, homophobic, theocratic Taliban in control of the White House than the patriarchal, misognyist, homophobic, theocratic Mormon cult. (Sure, the Taliban might kill you with bombs, but the Mormons kill you with their faux kindness.)

Don’t get me wrong; because I detest the Repugnican Tea Partiers does not mean that I am big on President Hopey-Changey. I haven’t given him a fucking red cent toward his re-election and I intend not to. The only way that I would cast another vote for him in November 2012 would be if it looked like his Repugnican Tea Party opponent (Romney, very most likley) might actually win California’s electoral votes in our winner-takes-all system, but in a state as blue as California, that’s highly unlikely.

Even worse than another four years of hopelessness and statis under President Hopey-Changey, admittedly, would be another Repugnican in the White House. While I can’t sing President Hopey-Changey’s praises — which is entirely his fault, not mine — I can continue to point out, and I will, how disastrous another Repugnican in the White House would be.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Will Herb Cain Steele the 2012 Repugnican nomination?

Republican presidential candidate and businessman Herman Cain makes a point while participating in a Republican presidential debate with the other hopefuls at Dartmouth College in Hanover

Reuters photo

Pizza guy Herman Cain pontificates at last night’s Repugnican Tea Party debate in New Hampshire. I didn’t watch the debate — I’m not a masochist — but I understand that the highlight of the debate was Michele “With Eyes Like Deer’s in Headlights” Bachmann quite presidentially remarking that if you turn Cain’s “999” plan upside down, you have 666. (Video clip of that here.)

Wow. What does it say about the Repugnican Tea Party that a former pizza boss is in its top tier of 2012 presidential contenders?

Really: WTF? The head of Subway is too busy to run for the White House?

A Reuters/Ipsos poll puts Mitt Romney at No. 1, with 23 percent of Repugnican Tea Party support, and Herman Cain at No. 2, with 19 percent. Not Rick Perry, but Ron Paul, came in at No. 3, with 13 percent, and Perry came in fourth, with 10 percent.

That poll was taken within the past week, but before last night’s Repugnican Tea Party presidential debate.

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, also taken within the past week but before last night’s debate, puts Cain at No. 1, with 27 percent; Romney at No. 2, with 23 percent; Perry at No. 3, with 16 percent; and Paul at No. 4, with 11 percent.

It’s safe to conclude, I think, that for the time being, anyway, it’s Romney and Cain at the top two slots, with Perry and Paul competing for No. 3.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t expect Herman Cain to emerge as the 2012 Repugnican Tea Party nominee. Never having held elected office, and with his “999” plan kind of sounding like something that the “rent is too damn high” guy might make the centerpiece of his presidential campaign, I’d be surprised if Cain emerges as the victor.

However, it’s not impossible. The Repugnican Party reacted to the election of Barack Obama in November 2008 by making Michael Steele the first black chairman of the Repugnican National Committee in January 2009.

Steele’s highest elected office had been lieutenant governor. Of Maryland. That apparently was the best that the Repugnican Party could do in terms of finding a black person within its membership to head the national party.

Steele cynically was selected primarily for the color of his skin. It was the Repugnican Party’s attempt at “proving” to the nation that it wuvs black people, too.

Of course, Steele — because he was, in a bizarre example of reverse racial discrimination, chosen for his race and not for his competence — was a bumbling party leader, and the Repugs ousted him in January of this year and replaced him with the more traditional face of the Repugnican Tea Party leader — a white guy.

After Steele, I’d thought that the Repugnican Tea Party leaders were done with trying to match Obama with another black man, but perhaps not. Yes, I could see them believing that the way to go in November 2012 would be to put another black man against Obama, even if no one in the party knew who the hell Herman Cain was a few months ago. (Sarah Palin not long ago infamously repeatedly referred to him as “Herb” Cain.)

Actually, the Repugs might see that — besides his race — as Cain’s strength: that he’s an unknown. People know Mitt Romney and they don’t like him, as evidenced by the fact that he can’t garner even a full 25 percent of his own party’s support. Cain is unknown enough that he might slip through, just like President Hopey-Changey did.

No president in my lifetime has not first been a U.S. governor, a U.S. senator or a U.S. vice president before ascending to the Oval Office.

If a former pizza guy actually makes it to the White House, while there might finally be some truth in our telling our children that they, too, could become president of the United States one day, it really would be time to seriously seek Canadian citizenship.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Wake-up call: Obama struggling in 2012 presidential matchups

Wow: A recent nationwide Gallup poll (taken August 17 and 18) puts President Barack Obama and all top three Repugnican Tea Party 2012 presidential contenders — Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann — polling at 40-something-percent each.

Even foaming-at-the-mouth lunatic Bachmann is only slightly behind Obama in the Gallup poll, at 44 percent to his 48 percent. Perry ties Obama, with 47 percent each, and Romney beats Obama by two percentage points, 48 percent to 46 percent.

(In the poll “libertarian” whackjob Ron Paul garnered 45 percent to Obama’s 47 percent, but Paul has about as much of a chance as Bachmann does of getting the Repugnican Tea Party presidential nomination. The last member of the U.S. House of Representatives who went from the House to the White House was James Garfield, for fuck’s sake.)

I realize that the November 2012 presidential election is more than a year off, but these numbers are waaay too close for comfort, and other nationwide polls taken this month show similar results.

One of those polls, a CNN poll taken over August 5 through August 7, has Obama over Romney by only one percentage point, 49 percent to 48 percent; has Obama also beating Perry, 51 percent to 46 percent; and has Obama beating Bachmann, 51 percent to 45 percent. (Ironically, that poll shows only former New York City Mayor Rudy “A Noun, A Verb and 9/11” Giuliani beating Obama, 51 percent to 45 percent, but Giuliani isn’t, at least as of today, running.)

Gee, maybe it was a bad fucking idea for Team Obama to fucking burn its base of progressives (that is, actual liberals).

Seriously: I surmise that if Obama hadn’t burned his base — repeatedly — he wouldn’t be stuck below 50 percent in the polls (with the margin of error [usually plus or minus 3 percent] factored in, that is). Obama received 53 percent of the popular vote in November 2008, which, while obviously was not a huge majority, was better than George W. Bush garnered in 2000 or in 2004.

With a demoralized, deeply disappointed base, I can’t see Obama matching his 53 percent in November 2012. What I can see is a very tight 2012 presidential race, like we saw in 2000 and in 2004 — and the incredibly spooky specter of a President Perry or a President Bachmann driving disappointed Obama voters to the polling booths in order to vote against Obama’s Repugnican Tea Party opponent much more than Obama ever could inspire people to vote for him.

Indeed, the 2012 presidential election seems to be shaping up to be about which candidate the voters hate the least rather than the candidate whom they love the most, which indicates that it’s long past time time to break up the partisan duopoly and to offer the American voters some real choices, and not only the choice between the Coke Party and the Pepsi Party.

The charade, the elephant and donkey show, will continue as long as we support it, it seems to me. As much as I don’t want to see a President Perry or a President Bachmann (or a President Romney), I’m also beyond sick and fucking tired of being punk’d by the Democratic Party.

Maybe a President Perry or a President Bachmann will solve the problem once and for all — if we survive such a presidency…

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

‘Crazy Eyes’ will choke soon enough

Image from Joe. My. God.

She’s lucky that Newsweek didn’t use this photo…

So what does it mean that Repugnican Tea Party Minnesota U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann won the quadrennial straw poll in Iowa today?

Well, in 2008, former Massachussetts Gov. Mitt Romney won the Iowa straw poll, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee came in at No. 2. Arizona U.S. Sen. John McCainosaurus, who didn’t actively participate in the poll, came in at tenth place — but went on to win the 2008 Repugnican presidential nomination nonetheless.

That’s how predictive Bachmann’s win today is.

Permacandidate Ron Paul, a “libertarian” (that’s supposed to be a better form of Repugnican Tea Partier) U.S. Rep. of Texas, came in at No. 2 in today’s straw poll in Iowa, and former Minnesota Gov. Tim “T-Who?” Pawlenty came in at No. 3.

But all of that is fairly meaningless, since the three of them have a snowball’s chance in hell of ever sitting in the Oval Office. It’s going to be Texas Gov. Rick Perry or Mitt Romney who wins the 2012 Repugnican Tea Party presidential nomination. I put Perry’s chances at about 60 percent and Romney’s at about 40 percent. Or maybe more like 70-30 or even 75-25.

As I’ve noted before, it’s most likely going to be the longest-serving (and still current) governor in the history of the most populous red state in the nation over the guy who had one term as governor in a Northeastern blue state and who has been out of elected office for about four years now.

And while Romney leaves most Repugnican tea-baggers limp, Perry is the Viagra that they’ve been wanting for some time now.

Perry is substanceless, and pretty much is a George W. Bush retread, but the Repugnican Tea Party traitors long have wanted their messiah, and their messiah has arrived in Rick Perry. (Besides, Romney is a Mormon — do they even believe in the messiah?)

Perry will tout Texas’ actual or alleged job growth during his tenure as governor, but of course while he’ll talk about a quantity of jobs, don’t expect him to talk about the quality of those jobs.

The reason that the greedy corporateers flock to Texas to open their businesses is that the pro-plutocratic, anti-working-class red state of Texas doesn’t protect its employees or its consumers. In McTexas, business owners don’t have to pay taxes because dog-eat-dog Texas doesn’t bother to provide its citizens with any services, and those business owners are allowed to screw their employees over as they please and to pollute and otherwise harm the public good indiscriminately in their relentless pursuit of profit, because Texas’ laws don’t protect employees or consumers — only the business owners.

But back to Michele Bachmann: The indignation over her recent Newsweek cover —

— is bullshit.

The woman looks batshit insane most of the time. It would be like me accusing Newsweek of unfairly making me look fat on their cover when indeed I could stand to lose many pounds. Unlike the Repugnican Tea Party traitors, the camera doesn’t fucking lie.

Blogger Joe Jervis usually doesn’t even use Bachmann’s name. He usually just calls her “Crazy Eyes.” And he’s been doing that for some time now. Because it’s accurate.

(Speaking of Joe, catch this video parody of Crazy Eyes’ Newsweek photoshoot, via Joe’s blog, Joe. My. God.)

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

On blogging fatigue and revolution

Of course, what I have is more like life fatigue, but this is a blog, so we’ll call it blogging fatigue.

I blog when I am moved to blog. I don’t believe in blogging on a schedule. I can’t see anything of worth being produced that way. Not consistently, anyway. My best blogging comes when the spirit moves me, and so if the spirit doesn’t move me, I don’t blog.

I haven’t been blogging much lately because what is there to blog about these days anyway?

Egypt looks like it’s on its way to freedom, and hell, maybe even Iran, too, but we’re a long way from freedom here at home — in no small part because once you mistakenly believe that you’re already free, you see no reason to pursue freedom.

How free are we here in the U.S.A. when the next several years are so fucking predictable?

I predict with a significant degree of confidence that the Richie Rich frat boy Mitt Romney will emerge as the 2012 Repugnican Party presidential nominee. I once thought that his being a Mormon would prove to be an insurmountable obstacle for him, but it’s pretty clear that the Repugnican Party is going with the youthful (well, in comparison to John McCainosaurus, anyway) white male now, as evidenced by the fact that last month Repugnican National Committee chair Michael Steele was dumped and replaced by some youthful white guy whose Richie-Rich frat-boy name no one can pronounce (or spell).

(Yeah, I know, Repugnican Rep. Ron Paul just won the wingnuts’ straw poll — again — but the wingnuts’ ball was packed with Paul supporters. He doesn’t have the Repugnican Party’s backing, so he’s going nowhere.)

No real Democrat will emerge to challenge Barack Obama for the 2012 Democratic presidential nomination — or if one does, it will be one who has a snowball’s chance in the rapidly melting North Pole, like Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich — and so Barack Obama will be re-elected in November 2012.

I predict that Romney will do at least a little bit better against Obama than McCainosaurus did, due to Romney being more photogenic than McCainosaurus and due to Obama having lost his luster of “hope” and “change,” but that Obama will get his second term.

There is no reason to believe that at any point in his presidency Obama will change his game significantly. He always takes the path of least political resistance. He thinks that slogans are a substitute for testicles.

I wholeheartedly agree with Andrew Sullivan, who recently wrote:

[Some U.S. senators] have to lead, because this president is too weak, too cautious, too beholden to politics over policy to lead. In [his recently released federal] budget, in his refusal to do anything concrete to tackle the looming entitlement debt, in his failure to address the generational injustice, in his blithe indifference to the increasing danger of default, he has betrayed those of us who took him to be a serious president prepared to put the good of the country before his short-term political interests.

Like his State of the Union, this budget is good short-term politics but such a massive pile of fiscal bullshit it makes it perfectly clear that Obama is kicking this vital issue down the road.

To all those under 30 who worked so hard to get this man elected, know this: He just screwed you over. He thinks you’re fools. Either the U.S. will go into default because of Obama’s cowardice, or you will be paying far, far more for far, far less because this president has no courage when it counts. He let you down. On the critical issue of America’s fiscal crisis, he represents no hope and no change. Just the same old Washington politics he once promised to end.

Yup. Not only does Obama refuse to stand up to the baby-boomer and senior citizen lobbies, which are perfectly happy to leave much less than nothing for those of us who follow them — and it’s not just those of us under the age of 30 who are getting screwed, but those of us in our 30s and 40s, too — but, as Sullivan also notes, Obama refuses to stand up to the military-industrial complex’s bloated-beyond-belief budget as well.

On one hand, the spineless, politically self-serving Obama, by refusing to push for what needs to be done, is only continuing the damage done to the nation by the unelected Bush regime, but on the other hand, Obama’s utter ineffectiveness in solving the nation’s problems demonstrates to us Americans that we’re foolish to continue to leave our nation’s fate in the hands of the ossified system in D.C. — a system that certainly doesn’t have our best interests at heart now, if it ever fucking did (any more than U.S.-backed Hosni Mubarak ever had the Egyptians’ best interests at heart).

Out of this realization that our government in D.C. is useless, real revolution, like what we’ve just seen in Egypt, just might take hold here at home.

Of course, revolution is a tricky business.

How many of us who are itching for revolution actually are going to take the advice of those who say, “OK, you throw the first Molotov cocktail!”?

Still, that first Molotov cocktail needs to be thrown.

After all, I need the inspiration to blog regularly again.

P.S. Another reason that I have blogging fatigue is that the nation is so fucking bogged down in high-schoolish diversions that few Americans are willing to have a dialogue about anything that actually fucking matters.

For instance, Salon.com, The Huffington Post and Media Matters — all of which are supposed to be robust members of some progressive media — all have reported that the Archie Bunker-like wingnutty liar Andrew Breitbart’s website has depicted Michelle Obama in a cartoon as — gasp!fat!

Media Matters notes that “this is the sort of stuff most of us left at the grade-school playground.” True, but Media Matters also not only reports on the unfunny cartoon, but reproduces it, thus elevating the level of our national discussion — not.

Meanwhile, our nation’s and our planet’s problems, such as the fact that the military-industrial complex and the baby boomers are draining the lifeblood of our nation and the fact that Homo sapiens’ continued existence is threatened by global warming, go unaddressed because we’re talking instead about the stupid fucking cartoon in which Michelle Obama is portrayed as fat.

Along these lines, you might want to read Salon.com’s Michael Lind’s little piece, which he begins:

What dumb thing did Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann or Glenn Beck just say? You don’t need to watch Fox News to find out. The progressive media will tell you. The economy is still in a coma, revolution is rocking the Middle East — but you can be sure that Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews will take time to snicker at something silly that Palin or Bachmann or Beck said in the last 48 hours.

Is the constant mockery of these bloviating right-wing demagogues really the best use of precious center-left media time? …

As Lind writes, attacking every stupid thing that comes from the circus freaks on the right, among other things,

[Is] a reactive strategy that gives the initiative to the right. When progressive opinion leaders wait for conservatives to say something stupid and then pounce on it, they cede the choice of topics in national debate to their enemies. No doubt this drives ratings, attracting hyper-partisan Democrats whose greatest pleasure in life is the rather low one of picking apart the statements of Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck…. But it’s no substitute for a liberalism that tells its own story, on its own timeline, and lets the right react.

and

[Is] a waste of effort and attention. We are mired down in two wars in the Muslim world and suffering from the greatest global economic crisis since the Great Depression. The last time things were this bad, in the 1930s, American liberals and leftists were debating the nature of capitalism and government and world politics and putting forth their own, often contradictory plans. Liberal politicians and journalists devoted little, if any, time to dissecting the errors of right-wing crackpots of the period, like the radio priest Father Coughlin.

If nothing else, the crackpots on the right do their corporate paymasters’ bidding by creating diversions from the national discussions that we should be having. These diversions maintain the status quo.

And I, for one, am sick and tired of the back-and-forth that doesn’t change a fucking thing. I can’t even visit the politics section of a bookstore anymore because I already know what to expect: the same old tired arguments that aren’t going to change anyone’s minds. (Or, in a word, gridlock.)

We need actual movement now, not more pointless debate that only keeps us in stasis.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized