giddy-ap (updated* yet again)

the donald is trumping his GOP competitors.

the billionaire real estate mogul has taken a rather shocking nine-point lead in a national poll of the hypothetical republican presidential field, according to a new survey by public policy polling ...

(us news and world report)

congrats to the billionaire toupee life-support system and born-again birther (and apologies to isaac asimov):

"there is an old fable," said hardin, "as old perhaps as humanity, for the oldest records containing it are merely copies of other records still older, that might interest you. it runs as follows: "a republican horse having a democratic wolf as a powerful and dangerous enemy lived in constant fear of permanent minority status. being driven to desperation, it occurred to him to seek a strong ally. whereupon he approached a birther, and offered an alliance, pointing out that the wolf was likewise an enemy of the birther. the birther accepted the partnership at once and offered to kill the wolf immediately, if his new partner would only co-operate by placing his greater speed at his disposal. the horse was willing, and allowed the birther to place bridle and saddle upon him. the birther mounted, hunted down the wolf, and killed him. "the horse, joyful and relieved, thanked the birther, and said: 'now that our enemy is dead, remove your bridle and saddle and restore my freedom.' "whereupon the birther laughed loudly and replied, 'the hell you say. giddy-ap, dobbin,' and applied the spurs with a will."

(* see "giddy-ap" from january 2008 and "giddy-ap upated" from september 2010)

giddy-ap (updated*)

congrats to christine o'donnell and her fellow triumphant teabaggers (and apologies to isaac asimov):

"there is an old fable," said hardin, "as old perhaps as humanity, for the oldest records containing it are merely copies of other records still older, that might interest you. it runs as follows: "a republican horse having a democratic wolf as a powerful and dangerous enemy lived in constant fear of permanent minority status. being driven to desperation, it occurred to him to seek a strong ally. whereupon he approached a teabagger, and offered an alliance, pointing out that the wolf was likewise an enemy of the teabagger. the teabagger accepted the partnership at once and offered to kill the wolf immediately, if his new partner would only co-operate by placing his greater speed at his disposal. the horse was willing, and allowed the teabagger to place bridle and saddle upon him. the teabagger mounted, hunted down the wolf, and killed him. "the horse, joyful and relieved, thanked the teabagger, and said: 'now that our enemy is dead, remove your bridle and saddle and restore my freedom.' "whereupon the teabagger laughed loudly and replied, 'the hell you say. giddy-ap, dobbin,' and applied the spurs with a will."

(* see "giddy-ap" from january 2008)

the gauntlet is thrown

steny is all talk, no action. they would have passed it today if they could. stalling for time. pure 100% propaganda.

we'll know tomorrow who's all talk, won't we?

good answer

joe scarborough and friends do their vapid best to get tom hanks, "the nicest guy in hollywood", to pile on obama:

joe:	... and [james carville] said: "what the obama people don't understand is washington always wins."
mika:	[nodding in agreement.]
joe:	is this one more depressing example — for you 1 — of how, with the obama administration, washington always wins?
tom:	we, ah, we're in the first year of what is going to be — what is going to be one the most difficult administrations in our history. we're at a place where world history is traveling around us. we're going to be fine and i think we've elected a wise, calm man who wants to get things done. common sense will out.
mika:	i don't disagree with that. i do think there may be people out there who would say, "well it's easy for you to say, easy for us to say", but there are a lot of people out there with no job and they have been looking for months and months and months and they may feel like this president is not completely connected with their plight.
tom:	well, maybe they, maybe they can elect [invent?] a time machine and they can go back and vote for john mccain, in which case i'm sure everything would just be hunky-dory right now.
mika:	ahh ... good answer! okay ...

---

1. ... because grown-up talk like that would naturally depress someone like you, tom, a naive liberal hollywood fantasist, and not someone like me, joe scarborough, a smug and savvy washington insider who, like a real democrat like my buddy carville, knows who's really running things ...

from ridiculous to sublime

digby @ hullaballoo:

... saying that it "covers everyone," as if there's a big new benefit is a big stretch. nothing will have changed on that count except changing the law to force people to buy private insurance if they don't get it from their employer. ... nobody's "getting covered" here. after all, people are already "free" to buy private insurance and one must assume they have reasons for not doing it already. whether those reasons are good or bad won't make a difference when they are suddenly forced to write big checks to aetna or blue cross that they previously had decided they couldn't or didn't want to write. indeed, it actually looks like the worst caricature of liberals: taking people's money against their will, saying it's for their own good.

david waldman @ daily kos:

this is, of course, quite true. to sell a bill that imposes a federal mandate on you, individually, to buy insurance from a private provider doesn't "expand coverage," it expands tax penalties. ... what do we think people hear when they hear that this bill, would "provide 29 million americans health care"? why not a bill that would "provide 29 million american families with a home of their own" ... provided they buy themselves one? that, or course, would be ridiculous. but let's add just a little more ridiculousness. what if we "provided" millions of american families with homes of their own... provided they buy themselves one... or else face a penalty under federal law? see? from ridiculous to sublime!

taking back america

what oliver said:

when liberals were out of power, we had these conferences called "take back america". they were a way to network, learn activism, etc. i went to a few (and spoke at a panel on one) and the overriding message was about turning america back to its progressive path. now conservatives are out of power and rather than the kind of talk we had, they talked about the "bloody battle" they would engage in with their guns in order to "take back america". slightly different.

though not everyone's saying we would get our hair mussed:

there is a remote, although gaining, possibility america's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the “obama problem." don't dismiss it as unrealistic. america isn't the third world. if a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. that it has never happened doesn't mean it wont.... ... will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a "family intervention," with some form of limited, shared responsibility? imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

not too long ago, it was "no less than an act of treason" to question the president. today, for the "disloyal" opposition, treason is patriotism — which, they have conveniently forgotten, has always been "the last refuge of the scoundrel".

update: annihilation alert

it looks like john perry's "seven days in may" wet dream got the zot from his masters. just a bit too much information even for them, i suppose. via conwebwatch:

newsmax has quietly removed without explanation john l. perry's column advocating a military coup against president obama. newsmax has offered no explanation or apology.

link updated accordingly.

plus ça change

one of the more amusing aspects surrounding the change in tenancy at the oval office is the persistence of particular partisan boogeymen:

[rep. paul broun (r-ga)] also spoke of a "socialistic elite" — obama, house speaker nancy pelosi and senate majority leader harry reid — who might use a pandemic disease or natural disaster as an excuse to declare martial law. "they're trying to develop an environment where they can take over," he said. "we've seen that historically."

the triple spectres of staged calamities, military coups and detention camps are alive and well as right-wing talking points, after being so effortlessly handed off to them, like a baton, from george bush's more breathless detractors on the left:

"the directive that was signed may 14/15 is the most troubling ... it is his way of having total power in the event of a natural or man made disaster ..." "i scare myself just thinking that an administration could/would perpetrate a catastrophy on it's [sic] own people just to retain political power ..." "even if this power is nothing new, what is new is a president so untrustworthy that i'll not be surprised if a false flag attack occurs next year in october, bush declares martial law, and he suspends the national election. i expect this supreme court would support him and gonzales (should he survive his term in the doj) would bring all the police power of the federal government to maintain bush." "of course, a blatant "coup" by bush, turning the federal government into the bushchaneyrove junta has been slowly in the making for some time, or haven't you noticed? the directive 51 is just the vaseline to make slide in more easily when they decide to not just ignore, but do away with the congress ..." "can homeland security remove you from your home, or place you in one of the haliburton camps? direct which corporations or other businesses get priority on the highways? on rail transit? will the internet be coopted, in the naqme [sic] of national security to keep us from commmunicating?" [sic] "remember that halliburton contract a yr ago to build new u.s. detention camps" "he is probably preparing to take over the country after the next presidential elections. he will have one of his goons call in an attack on us and then say 'look we just got attacked and i think i am the best person to take over, new president elect and the constitution be damned.'" "george has nothing to look forward too once he leaves office, he's served his purpose and will be of no concern. but, if he can make sure that the us military is effectively stuck in iraq, and not able to offer any resistance, his private army made up of mercs from blackwater and dyncorp to name just two can establish martial law and he can keep remain the president for as long as he pleases."

it was after hurricane katrina that fema fearmongering became particularly virulent on the left, and i've spent some electrons batting down those demons both on this blog and on other venues (and believe me, bush's nonstop cocky belligerence didn't help).

yet nonetheless ... i don't quite remember any sitting democrats helping ramp up the fear and loathing. do you?

not just obama (expanded)

with the tragically lengthening string of killings of public servants bringing the predicted resurgence in right-wing violence into sharp focus, both digby and the booman ponder its apparently cyclical nature:

digby: were unbalanced people driven to act by all the crazy talk about clinton? are unbalanced people being so moved by obama’s rise today? by crazy and semi-crazy talk about him? von brunn, who killed a decent person, apparently believed obama isn’t a citizen. but then, corder and duran may well have thought that clinton kept murdering people. not to mention his drug-dealing ways!

booman: ever since the modern GOP started taking shape during the mccarthy era, i cannot think of a time except the beginning of the carter administration, when the democrats have been control of everything and the right didn't start acting crazy.

as someone who's recently made something of a hobby following right-wing narratives about the crooked kenyan usurper, i think part of the right-wing propensity to shoot up the joint during democratic administrations can be attributed to their deeply-held and sincere belief that only conservatives are fit to lead and that only a lazy and ignorant public could ever vote otherwise.

why do urban centers vote democrat, and rural republican? urban = those who get money from the government for sitting on their butts. rural or suburban = those who actually produce and have money confiscated by the government to give to the urban population so they will vote for the liberals who gave it to them.

because urban folk think meat comes out of a plastic wrapper. think about it.

if black voters voted like normal americans, that wouldn't be the case.

it's not just obama who's illegitimate; liberals as a class have never been legitimate.

liberals and anybody else who aren't conservative are only second-class citizens, while conservatives only ever lose their place at the helm through the treachery and outright thuggery of the left.

it's an evolution of patronage and the subversion of the system at the ward level which is the historic province of the democratic party. the democrats have always had a less-than-stellar respect for the franchise. they treat it as a form of currency, to be controlled and doled out to those they favor. this evolved throughout the 20th century with the largesse-campaign-vote cycle that centered around welfare. they buy votes with money in the form of 'entitlements'. it is a simple and odious evolution of patronage since it makes the patron the master and the voter into a slave. democrats buy votes with threats of mob agitation and promises of free lunch. of course, throwing in a bit of class envy for all to indulge in as they indoctrinate their starving audience in class warfare is just considered 'light' entertainment. in short, the cities vote democrat because the people there have either been bribed, been titillated with hate, been bought outright, or have been told they have no hope but the party. actually, now that i've summarized it - i am struck with the hideous, precise evil of it all.

any "conservative" thought to be helping liberals obviously was never a true conservative to begin with.

we already knew what george HW bush was, and that is Not a True Conservative and Not a True Republican.

and anyone who discredits conservatives can only be a liberal.

please. help me out here. is president [george W] bush really so vane and worried about his own legacy that he won't do what is right or will he go down as the last great liberal to let the supreme court decide america's fate.

bring it on lurkers and moonbats........... james von BRUNN. LIBERAL assassin, SOCIALIST, COMMUNIST, MOONBAT al Qaeda supporter born in amarica, american hater.

(von brunn might not appreciate the irony of being branded a ni**er by his erstwhile fellow freepers after shooting a couple ...)

since america is a free country, liberals are allowed to live here, but america will remain a free country only as long as they are never free to run it, because to ever allow them to exercise any real hold on power is to invite civil suicide ...

. . .it is nonetheless incumbent on us to recognize that, where they would obstruct policies and practices that shore up the freedom and security of america’s citizens, liberal democrats are no less dangerous to the freedom that we continue to enjoy than are islamist terrorists.

... therefore any means that can be used to break that hold is justifiable and necessary. keeping the world safe for conservatives is every conservative's patriotic duty as a citizen.

giddy-ap

congrats to mike huckabee (and apologies to isaac asimov):

"there is an old fable," said hardin, "as old perhaps as humanity, for the oldest records containing it are merely copies of other records still older, that might interest you. it runs as follows: "a republican horse having a democrat wolf as a powerful and dangerous enemy lived in constant fear of permanent minority status his life. being driven to desperation, it occurred to him to seek as strong ally. whereupon he approached a christian fundamentalist man, and offered an alliance, pointing out that the wolf was likewise an enemy of the man. the man accepted the partnership at once and offered to kill the wolf immediately, if his new partner would only co-operate by placing his greater speed at his disposal. the horse was willing, and allowed the man to place bridle and saddle upon him. the man mounted, hunted down the wolf, and killed him. "the horse, joyful and relieved, thanked the man, and said: 'now that our enemy is dead, remove your bridle and saddle and restore my freedom.' "whereupon the man laughed loudly and replied, 'the hell you say. giddy-ap, dobbin,' and applied the spurs with a will."

from the mouths of babes

(cross-posted at daily kos)

from today's "grim" new unicef report on child welfare in the the top 21 industrialized nations, in which the netherlands and scandinavia came out on top, while the united states and britain sat "roundly bottom":

peter marshall, narrator: in the netherlands, home of liberal views on sex and drugs, their young people rank at the top of unicef's survey for well-being. we went to a school in the heart of amsterdam to talk to sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds. laura vos, student: in this country it's very free. you can do what you like, you can smoke when you're sixteen, you can buy pot in the store next to the school — [laughter] because it's not illegal, it's not that interesting for us to just — to provoke our parents with.

are you listening, mr. social conservative, mrs. moral majority, uncle christian coalition and auntie no-child-left-behind?

probably not.

still, miss vos does leave us with an interesting question: just what do dutch kids have to do there, to provoke their parents?

overall rankings from the report:
1. netherlands 2. sweden 3. denmark 4. finland 5. spain 6. switzerland 7. norway 8. italy 9. ireland 10. belgium 11. germany	12. canada 13. greece 14. poland 15. czech republic 16. france 17. portugal 18. austria 19. hungary 20. united states 21. united kingdom

all kidding aside, it is of course simplistic to attribute the success of the dutch solely or even primarily to its liberal attitudes. after all, a number of conservative and strongly religious nations like spain, italy and ireland made it into the top ten.

but what's noteworthy is how the report discredits the long-standing conservative-religious argument that morally permissive societies are dangerous to its children's moral and physical well-being. presumably this is the argument propping up their endless campaigns against hollywood, music, drugs, sex education, birth control, abortion, and the rest of their entire program. it's all about saving the children, don't you see?

and uncle christian coalition and auntie no-child-left-behind would have us all believe that only a strict country devoted to dogma can protect the young, not that a "decadent" country like the netherlands could ever rate such a list, much less come out on top.

don't even think about it

tristero at hullabaloo offers some free advice — the most undervalued kind, as always — in an open letter to liberal hawks:

dear liberal hawks and other fence sitters from 2002/2003 (you know who you are), don't even think about a "thoughtful, measured response" to this bullshit: president bush proudly declared that american foreign policy no longer seeks to "manage calm," and derided policies that let anger and resentment lie "beneath the surface." bush said that the violence in the middle east was evidence of a more effective foreign policy that addresses "root causes." this is sheer, abject lunacy of the sort that imagined the invasion of iraq would lead to city squares in iraq named after george w. bush and the invasion would pay for itself out of oil revenues. the only appropriate reaction is to very loudly proclaim this is the reasoning of madmen. no rational human being thinks like this. your credibility has been ruined already by falling for the preposterous lies and rationalizations prior to the iraq invasion. if you take this seriously, your immortal soul is majorly on the line ...

running on empty

looks like the party of stunts photo ops staged events cheap political manuevers ideas has just run out of them:

washington post: the response so far has been profiles in panic. some conservatives dropped their philosophical opposition to tax hikes and business regulations and began complaining loudly about oil companies and the auto industry. president bush last week announced that he wanted the authority to raise fuel economy standards on automobiles. one aide acknowledged the idea was devised on the fly, with almost no planning or discussion among relevant agencies. this became obvious within hours when white house officials cautioned that bush had no immediate plan to use the authority even if he had it. a few days earlier, bush backed diverting crude oil from the strategic petroleum reserve, an idea he dismissed less than two years earlier as a political stunt. republican lawmakers likewise have responded with a mishmash of solutions — some barely vetted, others with little chance of becoming law.

the problem? it seems that the citizens of emerald city, even the once-fawning dittoheads, are now paying very close attention to the man behind the curtain ...

new york times: the senate republican plan to mail $100 checks to voters to ease the burden of high gasoline prices is eliciting more scorn than gratitude from the very people it was intended to help. aides for several republican senators reported a surge of calls and e-mail messages from constituents ridiculing the rebate as a paltry and transparent effort to pander to voters before the midterm elections in november. "the conservatives think it is socialist bunk, and the liberals think it is conservative trickery," said don stewart, a spokesman for senator john cornyn, republican of texas, pointing out that the criticism was coming from across the ideological spectrum. angry constituents have asked, "do you think we are prostitutes? do you think you can buy us?" said another republican senator's aide, who was granted anonymity to openly discuss the feedback because the senator had supported the plan. conservative talk radio hosts have been particularly vocal. "what kind of insult is this?" rush limbaugh asked on his radio program on friday. "instead of buying us off and treating us like we're a bunch of whores, just solve the problem." in commentary on fox news sunday, brit hume called the idea "silly."

why ann coulter isn't funny

(cross-posted at daily kos)

i wrote the following after reading michael kalin's op-ed piece "why jon stewart isn't funny" in friday's boston globe. i found his piece intriguing, but thought it could use just a wee bit of tweaking, so i decided to tighten up his essay. i'm sure he won't mind.

(note: non-subscribers may view kalin's article by logging-in as dkos@dailykos.com with the password dailykos.)

why ann coulter isn't funny not by michael kalin  |  march 4, 2006 the selection of ann coulter as the host for february's annual conservative political action conference undoubtedly marks a career milestone for the aspiring queen of drive-by punditry. unfortunately, however, the ascension of coulter and her hate-speak into the public eye is no laughing matter. coulter's ever-increasing popularity among young angry white males directly correlates with the declining rationality of conservative thought in america. coincidence? i think not. let me explain. meet the young college republican, a not-fictional-enough composite of the typical apostle of ann coulter. born just outside richville, he attended silver spoon high school where he played an integral role in buying the school's debate championship. his doctored 3.8 grade point average and dubious array of extracurricular activities earned him a scholarship to bob jones university, where he majored in political science and enjoyed toilet-papering jewish synagoges. throughout his formal education, the young college republican stayed up-to-date on national politics through a steady diet of right-wing talk radio and even led a petition to protest the appearance of michael moore at cannes. many of coulter's die-hard supporters might use this persona as proof that her little black dresses engage sexually-frustrated viewers who otherwise could not be reached. this argument, however, fails to consider the ultimate career path of the young college republican: upon graduation in 2004, he accepted a prestigious job as a blogger at pajamaline media. and as he bloviates on washington's daily political squabbles, the young college republican gives a significant annual contribution to the k street project. the irony of this portrait is not that blogging corrupts young souls (although one could argue otherwise), but rather that the young college republicans who adopt politics out of a craven self-preservation often represent our country's most hypocritical minds. coulter's daily dose of political polemics characterized by puerile epithets leads to a "holier than art thou" attitude toward national service in iraq. people who possess the bile, sanctimony, and self-centeredness of these apologists for coulter would never choose to enter the military. content to remain hunched behind their orwellian plastic keyboards, these bright leaders head straight for their one-bedroom kitchen-offices. observers since the days of newt gingrich have often remarked about america's unique dissociation between conservatives and citizens of "outstanding character." unfortunately, the rise of corporate media and the domination of television faux news give coulter's goebbels-esque voice a much more powerful influence than critics in previous generations. as a result, a power-mad sociopath who may have become the richard nixon or george w. bush of today instead perceives politics as an escape from national service, rather than a powerful avenue for personal aggrandizement. most important, this disturbing cultural phenomenon overwhelmingly affects potential leaders of the republican party. the type of folksy banality muttered by soon-to-be-impeached-president bush deeply resonates with ann's demographic. according to a survey by somebody, not a single member of her audience identifies himself as iraq-bound. at a time when our flagging military desperately need inspired recruits, coulter's self-conscious hate-speak pervades the conservative punditry. although coulter's comedic shticks may thus earn her some laughs at the conservative political action conference, her routine will certainly not match the impact of her greatest irony: ann coulter undermines any remaining integrity that republicans in america might still possess.

i sent a copy to the globe.

the new republicans: a taxonomy

(cross-posted at daily kos)

glenn greenwald's recent examination of president bush's supporters has gotten a lot of well-deserved attention on both the left and right wings of the blogosphere. some commenters have noted that glenn's characterization of bush's supporters fails to account for other bases or wellsprings of bush support, i.e., lust for power, wealth, etc., but i don't believe that glenn was attempting to be all-inclusive.

to that end i've assembled a brief taxonomy of the different species of bush supporter that i've observed. note that these classifications are not meant to be exhaustive or mutually exclusive; many republicans will fit easily into multiple categories. ultimately, there may be as many reasons rationalizations for supporting bush as there are bush supporters.

afterthought: anyone taking bets on how long before some snarky right-winger posts their own democratic taxonomy?

the new republicans: a taxonomy 1) republicanus cultus idolizes bush; disdains criticism and dissent of bush; will support any act of bush and entertain any justification of his actions. example: pat roberts 2) republicanus potentia seeks power; will support any act and entertain any justification that may increase or perpetuate their hold on power. example: tom delay 3) republicanus pecuniosus seeks wealth; will support any act and entertain any justification that may increase or perpetuate their fortunes. example: ken lay 4) republicanus bellicosus loves force; disdains diplomacy and dissent; will wield force as an all-purpose tool towards achieving their goals, as opposed to a means of last resort. example: charles krauthammer 5) republicanus imperiosus loves being number one; will not accept second place or share power; will not rest as long as any other power exists to thwart republican political supremacy or american international hegemony. example: john bolton 6) republicanus fundamentalis loves righteousness; disdains tolerance; will not rest until all others either submit to their moral yardstick or are annihilated. example: james dobson 7) republicana contraria hates liberals; will support any act and entertain any justification that may offend liberals; will categorically denounce any statement made by a liberal; will denounce as "liberal" anyone or any statement that criticizes or contradicts them. example: ann coulter 8) republicanus oportunitas a grab-bag of special interests; not staunch republicans, but will take advantage of any opportunity to further their own causes, which in the current political climate means supporting republicans. example: lobbyists 9) republicanus goldwaterus respects traditional conservative principles; respects rule of law; disdains waste and adventurism; now becoming increasingly disillusioned with bush; sadly, a dying breed. example: bob barr 10) republicanus democratus a wolf in sheep's clothing and/or judas goat; may fit within any of the other categories; registered or professed democrat. example: joe lieberman