A Chicken Is Not Pillage

Here's to a Leftward Moving 2012

2011 probably wasn't the best year for most folks, though there was considerable improvement for many.  Politically speaking, it's been one of the most polarizing years I can think of.  Here's hoping for a better 2012.

We can make that happen.  Many individuals, smart and otherwise, have argued loud and long that America has a two-party problem.  We have a center right party and a far right party.  I'm not going to argue that; I never would or have.  Here's the thing, though.  Our challenge, which should be clear, remains muddied.  How do we get a left party in control of our governance?

If 2010, an awful year, is any indication, then the path would be to kill off the center right party.  How'd that work out?  Not well, obviously.  Since handing the US House back to the Republicans, the 99%ers have been held hostage at least 5 times.  I'm certainly glad we got rid of those Blue-Dog Dems in favor of truly partisan tea-baggers.  After all, partisanship is the problem and getting rid of partisans for more strongly partisan folks is surely the answer.

Or not.  How about this?  If the country has moved to the right because we have a center-right party and a far-right party, maybe the solution in defending the left isn't to attack the anchor in the middle.  Just saying ...  Maybe, just maybe, if we destroy the far right, utterly obliterate them, then maybe we might have vision left to support the left.  Just maybe.  It's easy to see that destroying the far right would leave us with a center right party in control, and doesn't that suck.  Maybe it does, except ...

You've all taken high school math, right?  If you want a function to move in a desired direction, you don't remove a moderating variable.  You remove the extremes.  It is that simple.  Remove the far right and you have a median that resembles more the country in representation.  The center right party already contains those who are of the left.  Destroy the far right, and you can't help but have a policy forwarded that better favors the middle and lower classes.  More to the point, you have a starting position for moving policy and politics towards the left.  This isn't that goddamned difficult.  Remove people like Skees, Burnett and Rehberg and you are left with people who are more pliant to your needs.  Start from the center right, and you're  one helluva lot closer to where you want to go than giving the game away to the far right, as we liberals did in 2010.

Here's to a happy New Year, one in which liberals finally decide to fight back rather than let the right take our apathy as acquiescence.

Satire Is Not Just Mockery

For one, satire is usually funny.  Mimicking in a completely bullshit way is rather apish, and one of the many reasons that the right is so poor at it.  It saddens me that so many on the left are so poor at it as well.  Satire begins with 'the truth' and then points to its absurdity.  Satire does not begin with a Straw Man, then commence knocking it down with Ad hHominem, contradictory thinking and insult.  That's the right wing method.  If one wants satire I suggest The Borowitz Report, The General J.C. Christian or the Onion.  If one wants self-important bullshit, I suggest this.

 

And for the record, Mark Tokarski actually had the balls to confront Milt Shook.  Milt smacked him like a bug. 

Hey mark,

Thanks for proving the point of the article for me.

Wanna talk about arrogance and hubris? How about your assumption that I don't "support Social Security, Medicare, oppose torture and want the wars to end, the tax structure restored, jobs protected."

No one's marginalizing the far left. The far left is marginalizing itself. Have you noticed? The far right keeps winning elections, even though they represent the smallest portion of the American populace. And it's because of people like you, who think it's "the Democrats" who are marginalizing you. Democrats have NEVER betrayed liberals; that's a fantasy. MOST minorities and poor ARE Democrats. Union members are MOSTLY Democrats. When you say you've been "betrayed" by "the Democrats," what you are actually saying is, blacks, Hispanics, the poor, gays and the elderly are "betraying" you.

That you were deeply insulted by the post demonstrates a galling level of narcissism. And the only one demonstrating "arrogance and hubris" here is you.

Now *THAT* was funny.

Whose Side Are You On?

I originally started writing this post as a comment at 4 & 20 Blackbirds.  But the Askimet commenting software they use tends to see a comment with multiple links as spam.  So, if'n none y'all mind, I'll post it here instead.

John Cole notices what I have written about at length.   Glenn Greenwald, progressive icon, asks the question that was mandatory as a patriot oath for the wargarblers several years ago.  Whose side are you on?  I have a better question.  Do you understand what you're doing?

jhwygirl wrote a post remarkably hopeful that the GOP might be willing to move on revenue increases to solve our economic woes in the face of extreme austerity measures.  She even refers to these efforts as "refreshing honesty", though in fairness her quote of honesty refers to a GOoPer no longer in any power.  I doubted it would be believed among the GOoP faithful, and indeed it wasn't, and my response was very direct and also honest.  "Don't believe a word of it."  The Republicants currently in power don't care about the deficit or deficit reduction.  They care about garnering power, and they are willing to destroy this country to get it.  They sure as hell don't want to actually raise revenue, no matter how much ear-play they give it on the talkies.  In the comments responding to my brother, Lizard posits the same tired trope that I only see such because I am a blind partisan who can't see beyond the label divide.

the problem with how “the established left” responds to the fractured right is that the left needs a monochromatic boogeyman as badly as the right does. just look at your brother, moorcat. don’t believe a word of it, he says. he says that because his ideology appears to render him incapable of thoughtfully considering different strains of conservatism.

And with pompous pontifications such as this, the so called 'reality-based' community jumps the shark.  What Lizard appears clueless about is that this very issue is being played out in the debt ceiling negotiations.  Republicants don't care about the deficit, and they will not accept raising revenue.

The ransom note is delivered.

The president and his party may want a debt limit increase that includes tax hikes, but such a proposal cannot pass the House.

Should one think the Senate more amenable, this is Mitch McConnell:

"So there’s one of two things going on here: Either someone on the other side has forgotten that there’s strong, bipartisan opposition in Congress to raising taxes. Or someone involved is acting in bad faith," McConnell said. “We’ve known from the beginning that tax hikes would be a poison pill to any debt reduction proposal." he said.

SteveM, from NoMoreMrNiceBlog, notes what should be obvious:

I think the walkouts on budget talks by Eric Cantor and Jon Kyl, taken in isolation, make Republicans look intransigent, in a way that generally polls very, very badly. In isolation, it’s a bad political move. Voters, especially swing voters, regularly tell pollsters they want the parties to compromise and negotiate like grown-ups, not act like stubborn children. The problem is, those same voters also think that if Democrats can’t somehow persuade Republicans to negotiate like grown-ups, then they’re equally at fault. So it’s a wash. And Republicans know it’s a wash. So there’s no downside for them in acting like stubborn children. Now, if the mainstream media would even occasionally float the theory that perhaps, just perhaps, the Republican Party is sometimes a tad extreme and irrational, maybe the truth of what’s going on here would have a chance of sinking in with average voters.

I submit that when liberal and/or progressive blogs join that media narrative of how the Democrats should be able to *do* something about the Republicant intransigence, they reinforce the voter idea that 'might makes right'. It's a twist such that Republicants, instead of looking like the saboteurs of the American dream that they are, end up looking like the strong leaders, and Democrats are again punished for not joining in the right-wing pogrom against the common folk. 4 & 20 is certainly not the only website to join in that insane chorus. But insane it is. jhwygirl's post and many comments to it paint the same picture. Republicans said things we like so Democrats should be responsible for "jumping on" this opportunity that is, was and will remain an illusion. And when Republicans do exactly what they've been doing, we can blame the Democrats and the President for not altering the behavior this bunch of tantrum-driven children have exhibited since Ronald Reagan. Lizard says:

both sides of the isle (sic) work behind the smoke screen when it comes to perpetuating this insane downward spiral of austerity, squeezed productivity, stagnant wages, and obscene corporate profit, but Obama groveling before wall street is suppose to be somehow better than the scary looming alternative. what the hell does it matter when the results are the same?

So, if the Democrats capitulate to the Republicans, they lose. Wall Street wants the debt ceiling lifted, so if Democrats attempt to do what needs to be done to get that and fail or win, then they are just serving their plutocratic overlords. There are only three ways to increase revenue and lower the deficit load in any significant fashion. Support terrorism (with an immediate and complete withdrawal of support to Afghanistan, and yes the "support terrorism" part was a sarcastic poke at what will be the public media narrative), raising taxes, and/or passing a stimulus significant enough to fully employ half of those unemployed and underemployed. All of those efforts have enough Republicant opposition that they would fail.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  That is the Republicant agenda.  Many in the progressive community seem to have missed Mitch McConnell saying that very thing a year ago.  They will burn this nation to the ground if it gives them the Senate and the White House back.  The media are helping them do that very thing.  I'm curious as to why so many progressives seem willing to assist that effort.

They don't care about deficit reduction.  They care about keeping voters interested in deficit reduction, where the rhetoric serves them.  They don't care about increasing revenue and will fight that tooth and nail.  They have so many folks twisted in knots that anyone liberal loses either way.  I'm not partisan for pointing that out.  I'm realistic.  I simply wish more progressives were.

Things That Need To Be Stated Clearly

I've alluded to something several times that's been bugging the hell out of me for a while now.  I wanted to state it clearly, but surprisingly enough, didn't want to be accusatory.  I also wanted to wait for the shitstorm to pass first.  I'm also going to point it out here at a website whose legacy doesn't browbeat me into not pointing and laughing at the obvious.

After the shooting of Representative Giffords, many were very quick to point out that violent rhetoric coming from the right is souring our national discourse, and quite frankly making it rather dangerous.  I agree and think that's sound reasoning.  I do not believe in the counter-arguments of moral equivalence between right and left unless they have reasonable relevance.  I deleted a comment from Rusty Shackledurp at LitW today which linked to a post from some Internet Toughguy who talked all kinds of smack about punching people who favor feminist use of language.  The left has taken a very principled stand against the violence of torture perpetrated against enemies.

What do these three disparate things have in common?  I'll tell you.  The writing of this post was inspired by a diary at Daily Kos which came over the left blogwire today.  It posits two kinds of Democrats, those who are weak and those who are strong, like our Good Governor.  But there was a quote in that which puit my hackles up:

that’s pretty much what I expect far too many Democrats to do, unless we can grab ‘em by the lapels

And do what?  Punch them?  Threaten them?  Kick them in the junk?  Tell them "Nice Democracy you got here, it'd be a shame if sumpthin happened to it ..."

Here's the entire quote, just for context which won't change my point:

Since negotiating away Medicare and Social Security is hugely unpopular…that’s pretty much what I expect far too many Democrats to do, unless we can grab ‘em by the lapels and show ‘em that voters want Democratic Democrats—you know, the kind of Democrat who understands how to grow a brand, and how to keep it strong, and how to set fire to bad ideas, loudly and publicly, when that’s the right thing to do. 

Now AH-AH!  Yes, that is the sound I make when my dogs are fixing to misbehave.  Don't tell me that kind of speechifying is just meaningless metaphor.  No it isn't.  It is a direct call of threat to very real people.  So is the ever popular endorsement of medieval torture:  'Holding their feet to the fire'.  That is a very precise endorsement of hurting another to achieve a personal agenda.  So don't no one be telling me that isn't "violent rhetoric".  It quite explicitly is.  It is a statement of 'Do what I want or I will hurt you.'  What saddens me most of all is the number of folks who use such verbiage to coerce others to sign onto such an authoritarian will, with a complete blind-spot about what they are demanding.  That's only slightly more sad than the number of people who actually think they personally have that kind of power.

In truth, I'm very happy that some I've butted heads with over the last weeks have moved to the language of accountability.  Favoring a politician or not, one doesn't need threat to control them.  At heart, that threat actually attempts to control others who might not share the view of the extortionist who uses it.  That was much of the point that many were trying to make after the shootings in Arizona.  Nine people didn't die because Sarah Palin used architectural symbols targeting reticules in her literature.  They died because some twisted asshole thought the threat didn't go far enough.  How will the left deal with upping the threat ante should something happen because they're advocating 'grabbing lapels and burning feet'?

Gosh I Can't WAIT!

So who do the Greens have running for Senate in 2012?  Anybody?  Anyone?  Beuller?

Staring Into The Crystal Ball

I hope that you have a taste for reading, because this is some very toothsome fare.

I'm not seeing much that will avoid the future as it can be seen.  America will collapse.

Despite the aura of omnipotence most empires project, a look at their history should remind us that they are fragile organisms. So delicate is their ecology of power that, when things start to go truly bad, empires regularly unravel with unholy speed: just a year for Portugal, two years for the Soviet Union, eight years for France, 11 years for the Ottomans, 17 years for Great Britain, and, in all likelihood, 22 years for the United States, counting from the crucial year 2003.

...

But have no doubt: when Washington's global dominion finally ends, there will be painful daily reminders of what such a loss of power means for Americans in every walk of life. As a half-dozen European nations have discovered, imperial decline tends to have a remarkably demoralizing impact on a society, regularly bringing at least a generation of economic privation. As the economy cools, political temperatures rise, often sparking serious domestic unrest.

America's end as THE world power?  Why that's unthinkable!  No, it's really not, and in fact is the very message that the right is promoting this very fricking moment.   I don't joke when I suggest that the right is employing a "scorched Earth" policy.  That is exactly what they are doing, and they are finding large support for such.

The problem that blew a hole in health care reform and the Obama Agenda this year wasn't "death panels": it was that there are millions of Americans who are stupid enough to believe that wingnut fictions like "death panels" are real.

The problem with President Barack Obama is not that he is a socialist or a communist or a secret radical or a Muslim or Kenyan Usurper: it is that there are millions of Americans who are racist enough to swallow this bilge and ask for seconds.

The problem with Fox and Hate Radio and Regnery Press and all the think tanks and all the websites is not that they churn out utterly toxic lies 24 hours a day: it is that there are millions of Americans who are too weak and too cowardly to stop listening to their Siren's song

And the problem with America is not that we have these vast numbers of stupid, frightened and racist people scattered in our midst: the problem with America is that -- at great expense -- they have all been methodically gathered into the same political party, and they are pointed like a gun at our heads.

I love and adore driftglass's parable.  I've used his tactic of failure to achieve many times.  So has anyone who's worked in technology for any length.  I refer to it as parenting.  I knew a young man once who kept breaking his glasses (cars, whatever) who was parented by shame.  Every loss was met by lesser gift.  He now refers to the glases he was forced to wear as "birth control spectacles".  Funny.  He couldn't break those.   Still, we have a broken Presidency, and we have a President that we haven't broken. 

Barack Obama is the most hated man in America. He has a wife and two young daughters, and death threats against him are reportedly 400% greater than those faced by his predecessor. If it's all theater and he's just faking it, isn't there an easier, less punishing, less threatening way for him to do that? Couldn't he simply stop arguing for policies that stir up hate in the heartland? Couldn't he become more like Ben Nelson or Harold Ford? Wouldn't that be easier -- and safer -- while leading to similar results?

The argument is that he's the political equivalent of the Washington Generals -- the team that exists solely to lose to the Harlem Globetrotters, while maintaining the illusion that the Trotters have an opponent. But when was the last time you heard of a Washington Generals player being viciously fouled? How much punishment do the Globetrotters dish out to the Generals? How angry does play get? That's theater disguised as competition. If Obama vs. the GOP is all Kabuki, why isn't it like that?

Oh, crap.  We haven't forced the issue.  Let's disregard that we might not know the issue.   Let's just primary this asshole and then things will be better:

♦  Forcing Obama to move to the Left will cause Republicans to lose heart, support Pelosi, abandon the filibuster and resolutely embrace single-payer Medicare-for-All.

...

Join the “Get Some Unhinged Jackwagon/Human Sacrifice to Primary Obama” (GSUJ/HSPO) bandwagon, today! It’s the New Age Dance Craze that’s sweeping the nation…here, here and here. Plus, if Dick Morris says it’s likely, you know it’s money in the bank!

~sigh~  There are definately times that your friends are not your friends.

It started off with a few oh-so-hilarious references to “Chocolate Carter” and “Mr. Presnint.” It moved on to “Dayum, I thought Obama was gonna be a gangster!” and “we elected a brother so he could bust some caps in whitey’s ass, not sell out to the man.” Now, the left is wholeheartedly embracing right-wing Rovian/Fox News race-baiting tactics:

There may be no point to the continuing struggle.  We may have already lost before Obama ever stepped up. But for fuck's sake, people.  If you have a suggestion for forward movement then make it.  Make it, now!  Don't just bitch about what you want.  State what you want and tell us how to get there?  Some asshole I know keeps talking smack abourt "organizing".  How, when, where?  This is the end game, folks.  We don't get do overs, from this point on.  The right has taken their blood and flesh.  We have nothing left to give.  There isn't a future for 'Murka.  What do you propose that we have left in the tank for the future of America?

Let Him Rave On That Men Shall Know Him Mad

One of the world's greatest Snarktopians, driftglass, is doing a series that will make me bust my gut laughing.  It might only be because The Ten Commandments is one of my favorite movies, but ...

The Ten Lessons of Rahmses.

So Much Anger

(I started writing this yesterday, but managed to delete half of it.  Hopefully, the gist won't suffer.)

Bet you think this is gonna be about the Tea Party don't ya'?  PSYCH!

Maybe it's just my fever addled brainyworks, but it seems like the Intertubes is all about the anger today.  jhwygirl at 4& 20 Blackbirds posted up the text of a speech that George Ochenski gave to the Flathead Valley Democrats.  The speech is actually quite good.  He points to the truth of Republicant rule, that they can and will accomplish worse than nothing.  He serves the Tea Party up, raw and wriggling.  Of course, the significance is what he has to say about Democrats.

Who isn’t frustrated and angry right now about the state of the nation? The tragedy, however, is that the Tea Party is capitalizing on that anger and frustration which both the Republican Party and, sad to say, the Democrats, continue to deny.

And that brings us to the most difficult part of my speech to you tonight – which is the state of the Democratic Party.

...

Democrats came to power on the promise of “Change and Hope” – supported by a tidal wave of enthusiasm, a surge of young people anxious for a better future, and a revitalized constituency ready to move our country away from war and international militarism to more sane, focused and tolerant policies that would implement those core values of liberty, justice and freedom for ALL.

I don’t need to tell you, my friends, that this is an unexpectedly dark time for Democrats…you can read it in the headlines every day.

Ochenski goes on to list the crimes of the Democratic establishment, while still lauding the efforts of the rank and file.  Altogether a rather stirring speech.    In short, George urges his listeners (readers) to focus the anger and frustration they feel on the root causes, and reject the malleable (manipulatable) generic rage of the Tea Party.  What was truly potent to me was his council that effort to get what you want begins at the local level.  How many people, how many times, have so urged me to quit supporting Democrats with my words and my votes (would it surprise you to find that at times George was one of them?)

My representative to the state legislature is Franke Wilmer, a person who's tireless campaigns for social justice cannot be denied.  My state Senator is Larry Jent, a person with a strong history of legislation which favors the core principles of the Democratic party.  There is a lot of anger from Republicants towards these two people who I want to represent me in Montana.  So much so, that they have unleashed the StormTrooper wing (Tea Party) and now both face challenge from Tea Party Candidates.  Jent faces off agaionst Mike Comstock, one of the mightiest loons ever to foist a newspaper editorial.  Comstock is a birther, a Republicant shill though he claims he isn't really a member of any party unless they give him a nod of favor and he has pledged to go to Helena to stop the legislature from accomplishing anything.  The RepTeapublicans know that HD 64 is Franke's.  But they are going after Larry Jent in SD 32.  What more anger must I feel to be motivated to vote for Larry Jent?  Well, none, none more.  My choice is clear.

One would or should presume that most Democrats would feel a similar urge to vote for their favored people, if not Nationally, at least locally.    Yet daily we are inundated with stories from the press describing two things:  Tea Party anger and the political will it engenders, and Democratic apathy.  Why the apathy?  It isn't real, we just see it as such.  Check this comment to jhwygirl's post from problembear:

so far only george and a handful of people seem to grasp the non-tea-party anger out there. i believe it is the silent majority of americans who are too tired, overworked, disillusioned, and depressed about the failure of the leadership of this country to express the growing anger which is building out there.

I would be hard pressed to disagree with that statement more.  It is a native part of liberal idealism that we see ourselves as isolated, alone in our understanding.  If we didn't have that, we wouldn't be liberal in our thinking.  But it can and has gone to extremes.  There is no "handful" that understands non-Tea Party anger.  There's a freaking multitude.  We are all pissed off.  We all know people who are pissed off.  We all know pissed off people who know other people who are pissed off.   This is not some cabal of mystery.   We're in this boat together.  And anger is not apathy.  Despair can be.  Seeing oneself as alone in a tide of trouble can be interpreted as apathy.  A bunch of people pissed off is a movement, if they are willing to recognize allies.

Don't get me wrong.  I respect problembear and have confidence that he will work and do and strive and vote.  So will I and many many others.  The press narrative tells a different tale, that Democrats are weepy and wailing and lazy.  We won't vote and what horrors will come of it.  Uhh, that wasn't the story that George told.  That wasn't the tale that p-bear wrote.  But it's what the Teapublicants want to believe.  No one will stand against their anger, because THEY HAVE THE POWAH!!!  We're angry too.  But unlike their anger,  most of us know what we're angry about.  And this is where it becomes so very complicated.  This is where others try and manipulate anger to a focus of their liking, of their choosing.

Examine this comment to jhwygirl's post:

I would remind George, however, that Democrats have always been as they are now … the party was for a short while heavily influenced by movements like enviros and civil rights and women, but the 80′s saw a purge, the rise of the DLC. Without movements, politicians do not move. FDR and LBJ only did what they did because of movements on the ground. They were scared of popular rebellion.

Shorter put, "Democrats only behave as Democrats want when they behave as Democrats want".  In other words, Banned In Marktown completely ignores the very example that George brought up, and every example of Democrats serving their base, which was the very point of Ochenski's talk.  Mark isn't alone in his efforts to show Republicants and Democrats as always the same, and always the enemy.  The PUMA Firebaggers are desperate to do such too.

I quite reading the PUMA sites (Corrente, Talk Left ...) some time back.  Fortunately for me, John Cole didn't.  Hence, he's able to post one of the dumbest ass arguments from "Big Tent Democrap" I think I've ever read:

One of the arguments forwarded during the health bill debate was that the provisions would get stronger over time, as a constituency for new services developed. I thought it a doubtful assertion at the time (consider that no new government program – yes, a public insurance program – was created) and I imagine folks who argued that assertion are thinking it is doubtful now too. From today’s NYTimes:

For starters, Republicans say they will try to withhold money that federal officials need to administer and enforce the law. [. . .] “They’ll get not one dime from us,” the House Republican leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, told The Cincinnati Enquirer recently. “Not a dime. There is no fixing this.” [. . . ] Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, a senior Republican on the Finance Committee, has introduced a bill that would eliminate a linchpin of the new law: a requirement for many employers to offer insurance to employees or pay a tax penalty.

[. . .] Republicans say they will also try to scale back the expansion of Medicaid if states continue to object to the costs of adding millions of people to the rolls of the program for low-income people.

What you will have left is an individual mandate and state based exchanges (with inadequate subsidies.) Would that still be “the biggest progressive accomplishment in 40 years?”

You get that?  If Teapublicants remove everything good from some legislation then Democrats are to blamed because Democrats let the Teapublicants do that without the power to stop them.  Democrats are the problem.  Just like Ochenski said ... oh wait, that's not what he said at all.  That's what an idiot said, and we're supposed to believe it and despair.

I like Cole's way of putting it:

That’s a winning argument you got there, BTD- “If Republicans strip all the progressive aspects out of legislation, it won’t be very progressive. Suck on that, Obots!” Likewise, if I took out all the words in a dictionary, it wouldn’t be much of a dictionary, would it! Haha! I got you with my impeccable logic!

We are assailed from both sides, right and left.  And the assault has the same damned form.

Hey, hey, you, buddy ... hey, no offense pal, but you look kinda down, kinda pissed.  HEY, no offense pal, none meant.  Don't mean to fuss witcha.  No problems, 'right?  I just mean you got a problem and I got the cure.  Hey, check dis, check dis out.  You wanta be mad, be mad.  But be mad here.  Blame that asshole in the white howse, and any like him.  We're all in dis togedder, right?   Yeah, do a little a dis anger, you gonna feel good.  Like awesome good.  Here, haves a free sample, made from snakes y'know  ...

It's bullshit.  It's all bullshit.  Ochenski is right, and the snakeoil salesmen are wrong.  We will be, and have been and will remain Democrats because we believe in Democratic principles.   Yes, we can be pretty pissed off at other Democrats.  God knows, I am.   But that doesn't mean that we reject our principles based on a lable that others supposedly like minded slap on their foreheads.  Again, John Cole:

Yes, I understand the Democrats suck, and yes, there are a fair number of really bad Democrats (Ben Nelson, I’m looking at you). And maybe it has always been this way, and I have just woken up, but it sure seems like the choices between the two parties are as distinct as they have ever been. In one day, we have clear evidence that the Republicans are choosing to vote for bigotry over the rights of gays, bigotry extending opportunity to immigrants, and the big corporations over the consumer. Anyone who says there is no difference between the two parties needs their head examined and their driver’s license taken away.

If Democrats can not make the case, maybe the economy is the only thing that matters and we should just say to hell with elections and apportion seats in congress based on the unemployment rate.

What John may have missed is that to not choose isn't an option.  This is the time to be angry.  Be clear about who you're angry at.

What We Should Have Learned On Tuesday Night

Something I've been saying for years.  The difference between Democrats and Republicants is this:

Democrats actually care about who the person is who is running for office ... or at least they did until fairly recently.  Republicants don't.  They care about party identity, and have foisted that image onto any opposition, and the opposition actually swallows that line of crap.  Greens run against Democrats because Democrats are weak betrayers.  Libertarians run pretty much as Republican crazy.  Rs and Ds run against each other, and the great cycle of life moves on.  But voting doesn't work that way and never has, except for those obsessed with authority.  Voting is emotional and very personal.  That should give a strong Democrat/Green/Libertarian favor any single day, yet it doesn't.  And that's because the Republicants have held true to the dictum Party Uber Alles.  Republicants have gone so long at painting the picture of 'party' that every other party has joined their game.  That's the only reason that bi-partisanship has any efficacy at all.  It's all about what flag you fly, not what you believe in.

So here we are in an election when everyone is struggling to be the face of party, even to the point of hiding what party you represent, right Landrieu?  That's a Republican fable told by an idiot to idiots.  And the idiots buy it.  Voting doesn't work that way.  It's emotional, and Tuesday night should have taught us that.  To some respects it did, and in beauty, it was among the Republicans where it flowered.  That's not the fault of Democrats.  It's there own.  The best quote that could possibly be written about the modern Republican party is this:

Lesson (one would hope) learned by the GOP: when you hand the car keys to the unmedicated bi-polar alcoholic with the messianic complex, don't be surprised if you end up driving off a bridge as a trust exercise with Jesus.

There are many on the left who will likely disagree with me, but the Tea Party has played it's hand and they're bluffing.  They threw control to the crazy and the crazy are running the wrong way.  This is a very good thing; not because it hurts Republicants but because it breaks the narrative that so many others suckle.  Elections aren't about party, they are about people we want to represent us.  It's about damned time that people start recognizing that, and we owe the Republicants once again for showing it so clearly.

Say it. SAY IT!

Okay, I'll say it!

Several posts on the sinestra  of the Montana InterTubeWebs have posited evil on the part of the Montana Democratic party because their party platform hasn't conformed to 'progressive' teachings.  And the impact of party platform with voters appears to be ... nil, except among those who want agreement.  The Tea Party (teabaggers) are also very upset with the Republicants, but at least their platform endorses the crazy. 

So here's a simple question.  What offense is due a party platform and why?

There are those who wail deeply about the affront to 'progressives' in the Montana Democratic platform.  They hold that the power for politics lies with the 'progressive' platform, and vow to withhold votes from Democrats until Democrats endorse a platform of a party that others remain too frightened to actually form.  Is this actually making sense to anyone?  Seems to be obvious that withholding support from Democrats while doing absolutely nothing to promote a party that supports the issues one desires, is giving default victory to those who absolutely revile your desires.  There is no progressive party.  I actually read, today,  the stupid assertion that the horrors foist on our country were only "boogeymen" to "keep progressives in line".  WTF?  Progressives have any power?  No, they really don't.  Because 'progressives won't take any power, save handing it to those who revile them just to punish those folk who won't gift progressives power.  They just, for the most part, expect it to be handed to them because they're oh so cool.  If this isn't making any sense to you, then fine.  It isn't making any sense to most Democrats either.  It the "useful tool"  that Republicans rely on to kill us all slowly.

I'm not defending Democrats.  Anyone who has half an ounce of reading comprehension will see that.  I'm chiding 'progressives' because they won't go far enough.  They expect Democrats to do what they want, and then chafe at the bit because Demo0crats expect their support in opposition to the alternative.  And the sadest part of all  is that progressives only want air time.  'Pander to my desires!  SAY IT!'  Democrats:  Uhm, that's not politically viable.  Progressives:  'Do what I want or I will support the enemy of everything I want!'.  Democrats:  'Well, we'll try'.  Progressives:  'You haven't said it.  You haven't SAID IT !!!!  Say it.  SAY IT!'  Democrats: 'You're a little nuts, aren't you?'

Seriously. progressives, what is the problem here?   Gay is legal in Montana,  Abortion is legal in Montana, birth control is legal in Montana.  What is the problem here?  I'm just kinda askin' ...

And that's not a lie.  I'm just askin' ...