Wonkette:
Arizona Teahadists show up at a John McCain town party rally to demand he apologize for calling them "hobbits."
I give up. Satire is dead. There's no way I could write anything more insane than that.
Showing posts with label teabaggers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label teabaggers. Show all posts
Wednesday, 10 August 2011
Sunday, 31 July 2011
"Job Creators" and the Tea Party Jihad
Latest Newspaper Column:
I usually don’t read a lot of “celebrity” news, but for some reason, a story in the online version of the British newspaper The Guardian caught my eye.
According to the Guardian story, Oscar-winning director Steven Spielberg and Gwyneth Paltrow (who, as it turns out, is Spielberg’s goddaughter) recently got in a little bit of trouble when a motorboat from Spielberg’s 85-meter yacht, the Seven Seas, got a little too close to a beach in Sardinia.
Swimmers were quick to call in the Coast Guard, which slapped a fine of 172 euros (about 247 bucks) on Spielberg for violating Italy’s strict laws about beach safety.
My first thought upon reading this story was, “Heck, he ought to just rename the boat ‘Job Creator’ and come back to America. In this political environment, he could do anything he wanted: run over fishermen, crash into the docks, generally act like the Rodney Dangerfield character in ‘Caddyshack’ did when he got on his boat.”
See, thanks to the no-taxes-on-the-wealthy rhetoric that has been mandated by the fanatical wild-eyed mullahs of the Tea Party Jihad (or Teahadists, as I call them), what used to be known as “rich people” are now “job creators.” And God forbid anyone doing something that might disturb the delicate feelings of the JCs, like asking them to pay their fair share for the running of this country.
According to the speaker of the House, Cryin’ John Boehner, “The mere threat of tax hikes causes uncertainty for job creators, uncertainty that results in less risk-taking and fewer jobs.”
Hear that? Even talking about asking the JCs to pony up a few more shekels is likely to make them curl up like snails into their shells and take the jobs with them. Environmental and financial regulations? Fuhgeddaboudit. We can’t make the “job creators” angry.
This deification of the so-called “job creators” has gotten so entrenched that I’ve actually considered getting a license plate that says “JOBCREATOR” so I could drive as fast as I want and never get my car inspected. On April 15, I’ll just write “Job Creator” on my tax form, send it in, and tell the IRS to go pound sand. And if anyone dares cross me, I’ll threaten to sic John Boehner or Mitch McConnell on them.
The only problem is, the frequently repeated assertion that “if we tax the rich, it’ll kill jobs” is a crock. After all, Bush the Younger was a tax-cuttin’ fool (literally), and The Wall Street Journal (not exactly a bastion of liberalism) called his track record on jobs “the worst on record.”
According to The WSJ, “The Bush administration created about 3 million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton’s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.”
Yet the Teahadists act like Clinton-era tax rates are so heinous an example of government tyranny that they’re perfectly willing, even eager, to suicide-bomb the entire economy to stop them from ever coming back.
As so often happens, neither history nor math is kind to the Teahadist dogma. The Center for American Progress looked at the numbers and found that top income tax rates bear little or no relation to job growth.
In fact, they note, “In the past 60 years, job growth has actually been greater in years when the top income tax rate was much higher than it is now. ... For instance, in years when the top marginal rate was more than 90 percent, the average annual growth in total payroll employment was 2 percent. In years when the top marginal rate was 35 percent or less — which it is now — employment grew by an average of just 0.4 percent.”
Further, “When the marginal tax rate was 50 percent or above, annual employment growth averaged 2.3 percent, and when the rate was under 50, growth was half that.”
Long story short, lower taxes on the wealthy don’t equal more jobs. They never have. That’s just another one of the long cons the GOP is running on people, playing on economic fear to reap more tax breaks for the same fat cats who’ll most likely use the extra cash to give themselves huge bonuses for sending jobs overseas.
Don’t fall for it.
I usually don’t read a lot of “celebrity” news, but for some reason, a story in the online version of the British newspaper The Guardian caught my eye.
According to the Guardian story, Oscar-winning director Steven Spielberg and Gwyneth Paltrow (who, as it turns out, is Spielberg’s goddaughter) recently got in a little bit of trouble when a motorboat from Spielberg’s 85-meter yacht, the Seven Seas, got a little too close to a beach in Sardinia.
Swimmers were quick to call in the Coast Guard, which slapped a fine of 172 euros (about 247 bucks) on Spielberg for violating Italy’s strict laws about beach safety.
My first thought upon reading this story was, “Heck, he ought to just rename the boat ‘Job Creator’ and come back to America. In this political environment, he could do anything he wanted: run over fishermen, crash into the docks, generally act like the Rodney Dangerfield character in ‘Caddyshack’ did when he got on his boat.”
See, thanks to the no-taxes-on-the-wealthy rhetoric that has been mandated by the fanatical wild-eyed mullahs of the Tea Party Jihad (or Teahadists, as I call them), what used to be known as “rich people” are now “job creators.” And God forbid anyone doing something that might disturb the delicate feelings of the JCs, like asking them to pay their fair share for the running of this country.
According to the speaker of the House, Cryin’ John Boehner, “The mere threat of tax hikes causes uncertainty for job creators, uncertainty that results in less risk-taking and fewer jobs.”
Hear that? Even talking about asking the JCs to pony up a few more shekels is likely to make them curl up like snails into their shells and take the jobs with them. Environmental and financial regulations? Fuhgeddaboudit. We can’t make the “job creators” angry.
This deification of the so-called “job creators” has gotten so entrenched that I’ve actually considered getting a license plate that says “JOBCREATOR” so I could drive as fast as I want and never get my car inspected. On April 15, I’ll just write “Job Creator” on my tax form, send it in, and tell the IRS to go pound sand. And if anyone dares cross me, I’ll threaten to sic John Boehner or Mitch McConnell on them.
The only problem is, the frequently repeated assertion that “if we tax the rich, it’ll kill jobs” is a crock. After all, Bush the Younger was a tax-cuttin’ fool (literally), and The Wall Street Journal (not exactly a bastion of liberalism) called his track record on jobs “the worst on record.”
According to The WSJ, “The Bush administration created about 3 million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton’s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.”
Yet the Teahadists act like Clinton-era tax rates are so heinous an example of government tyranny that they’re perfectly willing, even eager, to suicide-bomb the entire economy to stop them from ever coming back.
As so often happens, neither history nor math is kind to the Teahadist dogma. The Center for American Progress looked at the numbers and found that top income tax rates bear little or no relation to job growth.
In fact, they note, “In the past 60 years, job growth has actually been greater in years when the top income tax rate was much higher than it is now. ... For instance, in years when the top marginal rate was more than 90 percent, the average annual growth in total payroll employment was 2 percent. In years when the top marginal rate was 35 percent or less — which it is now — employment grew by an average of just 0.4 percent.”
Further, “When the marginal tax rate was 50 percent or above, annual employment growth averaged 2.3 percent, and when the rate was under 50, growth was half that.”
Long story short, lower taxes on the wealthy don’t equal more jobs. They never have. That’s just another one of the long cons the GOP is running on people, playing on economic fear to reap more tax breaks for the same fat cats who’ll most likely use the extra cash to give themselves huge bonuses for sending jobs overseas.
Don’t fall for it.
Tuesday, 1 February 2011
How Can They Believe All That Crap?
Charles Johnson, in his blog post The New Tribalism at TPMCafe, explains how the teabaggers and other wingnuts continue to accept and embrace repeatedly discredited memes that are demonstrably untrue:
Within the tribe there's no need to be concerned with facts or accuracy; if the goal is to demonize a hated opponent, for example, anything and everything goes, including smears known to be false. That's because the objective is not to convince an impartial observer -- it's to reinforce the tribal bonds, the sense of belonging to something, with its own shared reality. That shared reality doesn't have to reflect actual reality; anybody who doesn't share it is by definition not part of the tribe, and therefore an enemy.
So, the next time you hear someone fuming about "death panels" or "Obamanation's Secret Muslim Agenda" or "Government takeover of health care/the financial industry/etc" remember: reason won't work. Reason just shows you're not one of the tribe, you're one of "them," and "they" must be resisted at all costs.
This isn't to say you shouldn't correct try to correct misinformation. People who haven't already made up their minds, the impartial observers Johnson mentions--in other words, people who aren't already part of the "tribe," need to hear it.
But forget trying to convince someone who's already in. To your hard core wingnut, it's not about the truth: it's about the tribe.
Sunday, 30 January 2011
State of the Union
Latest Newspaper Column- The Pilot:
In President Obama’s State of the Union speech this past week, he continued some of the same themes of unity and bipartisanship from his speech in Tucson a couple of weeks ago.
“We are part of the American family,” he said. “We will move forward together, or not at all.”
But the greater challenge may be not just creating a unity of purpose between Republicans and Democrats but getting members of the two parties to get along with the people who are allegedly on their own side.
Rep. Paul Ryan was picked to give the traditional response from the loyal opposition. Ryan’s speech was, like all Republican rhetoric on the deficit, long on exhortations to cut spending but awfully vague on exactly which spending to cut. This may be because Ryan’s own plan, dubbed the “roadmap,” calls for severe cuts in Social Security and the dismantling of Medicare, two huge benefits paid to the GOP’s most loyal constituency: senior citizens.
It’s quite a balancing act the Republicans do. If they really tried to make the cuts that would be required to balance the budget without tax increases, their elderly supporters would storm the Capitol (albeit very slowly) and drag their congressman down the street by the heels behind their little Medicare-funded Rascal scooters.
But then, after Ryan’s response, something unusual happened. CNN broadcast another response from another Republican, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, who claimed to be giving the “tea party” reaction.
You can always depend on Bachmann to bring the crazy, and she didn’t disappoint. She delivered the whole speech staring off camera, as if she couldn’t bear to look the American people in the eye.
As it turns out, she was looking into another camera, the one broadcasting to the tea party faithful via the Internet, which was also the camera with the teleprompter. It seems that teleprompters, like everything else the right claims to despise, are just fine if you’re a Republican.
And what would a speech from Rep. Crazy-Eyes be without a heaping helping of paranoid fantasies and outright fabrications?
Fresh from her interview in which she asserted that the Founding Fathers “worked tirelessly to eradicate slavery,” Bachmann doubled down on the misinformation, repeating frequently debunked claims that “Obamacare” would result in “16,500 IRS agents in charge of policing” the bill and bizarre warnings about “government bureaucrats telling you what light bulbs to buy.”
CNN’s decision to air the speech drew criticism from some Republicans. One aide sent out an e-mail calling it “irresponsible journalism” for CNN to aid Bachmann in her quest to become the GOP’s loosest cannon.
The most surprising criticism, however, came from a tea party group in Bachmann’s home state.
“Please call Michele Bachmann’s office and tell her that she does not speak for the tea party,” the group said in a mass e-mail. “The Tea Party Patriots Organization is a grassroots organization. One person has no right to speak for the whole organization.”
Wow. Too crazy for the tea party. That’s pretty impressive.
On the other side of the aisle, the president got some immediate pushback from his own party. In response to his promise to veto any legislation that arrived on his desk with so-called “earmarks,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sniffed that it was a “great applause line” but that Obama “should back off and let us do what we do.” Which is, apparently, diverting as much government money as possible to their states or districts to keep the voters happy.
It’s another one of those dirty secrets closely held by lawmakers of both parties. Everyone pretends to deplore “pork” or “earmarks” or whatever they’re calling it this year, but every legislator knows their voters won’t keep loving them if they don’t bring some of that federal money home to them. It’s the one thing both parties have always seemed to agree on.
Even Republican Leader Mitch McConnell was resisting a proposed earmark ban until someone from the tea party put a severed horse’s head in his bed or something and caused him to reverse himself, at least in public.
It remains to be seen if this will continue, or if GOP lawmakers will revert to their traditional stance that it’s not “government spending” if the money’s going to their district or their big campaign contributors.
Meanwhile, the two parties continue to squabble, not just with each other, but also among themselves. Maybe what we really need is not just bipartisanship, but multi-partisanship.
In President Obama’s State of the Union speech this past week, he continued some of the same themes of unity and bipartisanship from his speech in Tucson a couple of weeks ago.
“We are part of the American family,” he said. “We will move forward together, or not at all.”
But the greater challenge may be not just creating a unity of purpose between Republicans and Democrats but getting members of the two parties to get along with the people who are allegedly on their own side.
Rep. Paul Ryan was picked to give the traditional response from the loyal opposition. Ryan’s speech was, like all Republican rhetoric on the deficit, long on exhortations to cut spending but awfully vague on exactly which spending to cut. This may be because Ryan’s own plan, dubbed the “roadmap,” calls for severe cuts in Social Security and the dismantling of Medicare, two huge benefits paid to the GOP’s most loyal constituency: senior citizens.
It’s quite a balancing act the Republicans do. If they really tried to make the cuts that would be required to balance the budget without tax increases, their elderly supporters would storm the Capitol (albeit very slowly) and drag their congressman down the street by the heels behind their little Medicare-funded Rascal scooters.
But then, after Ryan’s response, something unusual happened. CNN broadcast another response from another Republican, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, who claimed to be giving the “tea party” reaction.
You can always depend on Bachmann to bring the crazy, and she didn’t disappoint. She delivered the whole speech staring off camera, as if she couldn’t bear to look the American people in the eye.
As it turns out, she was looking into another camera, the one broadcasting to the tea party faithful via the Internet, which was also the camera with the teleprompter. It seems that teleprompters, like everything else the right claims to despise, are just fine if you’re a Republican.
And what would a speech from Rep. Crazy-Eyes be without a heaping helping of paranoid fantasies and outright fabrications?
Fresh from her interview in which she asserted that the Founding Fathers “worked tirelessly to eradicate slavery,” Bachmann doubled down on the misinformation, repeating frequently debunked claims that “Obamacare” would result in “16,500 IRS agents in charge of policing” the bill and bizarre warnings about “government bureaucrats telling you what light bulbs to buy.”
CNN’s decision to air the speech drew criticism from some Republicans. One aide sent out an e-mail calling it “irresponsible journalism” for CNN to aid Bachmann in her quest to become the GOP’s loosest cannon.
The most surprising criticism, however, came from a tea party group in Bachmann’s home state.
“Please call Michele Bachmann’s office and tell her that she does not speak for the tea party,” the group said in a mass e-mail. “The Tea Party Patriots Organization is a grassroots organization. One person has no right to speak for the whole organization.”
Wow. Too crazy for the tea party. That’s pretty impressive.
On the other side of the aisle, the president got some immediate pushback from his own party. In response to his promise to veto any legislation that arrived on his desk with so-called “earmarks,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sniffed that it was a “great applause line” but that Obama “should back off and let us do what we do.” Which is, apparently, diverting as much government money as possible to their states or districts to keep the voters happy.
It’s another one of those dirty secrets closely held by lawmakers of both parties. Everyone pretends to deplore “pork” or “earmarks” or whatever they’re calling it this year, but every legislator knows their voters won’t keep loving them if they don’t bring some of that federal money home to them. It’s the one thing both parties have always seemed to agree on.
Even Republican Leader Mitch McConnell was resisting a proposed earmark ban until someone from the tea party put a severed horse’s head in his bed or something and caused him to reverse himself, at least in public.
It remains to be seen if this will continue, or if GOP lawmakers will revert to their traditional stance that it’s not “government spending” if the money’s going to their district or their big campaign contributors.
Meanwhile, the two parties continue to squabble, not just with each other, but also among themselves. Maybe what we really need is not just bipartisanship, but multi-partisanship.
Saturday, 4 December 2010
BSWATs
In my interactions on various online fora, I've noted recurring patterns in so-called "debate" technique among the wingnuts and teatards. I'm collecting and numbering them here so you can recognize them. I refer to them as BSWATs (pronounced 'bee-swats.") The last three letters stand for "Wingnut 'Argument' Techiques." You can figure out what the first two stand for.
1) The simple unsupported contradiction and the repeated assertion of a demonstrably wrong premise as “Fact.” This clip from ”Family Guy” illustrates the technique:
2) A similar technique: dismissing the argument out of hand, without attempt to debate:
"Kevin Bacon was the star of Footloose."
"That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard." (leaves discussion).
3) Ignoring what was said in favor of whining about the way it was said.
Example:
“Of course Kevin Bacon was in Footloose. Here’s the DVD box, you idiot. His name’s right there.”
”You called me a name! You libs don’t have any arguments. All you do is insult people.”
4) Handwaving away any information that contradicts you by dismissing the source out of hand.
“Look, Kevin Bacon starred in Footloose. It says so right here in the Internet Movie Database.”
“IMDB? LOL.”
5) Dragging some irrelevant celebrity bogeyman’s name into the conversation:
“Keith Olbermann thinks Kevin Bacon starred in Footloose, too. You sound like Keith Olbermann.” Other names used: Michael Moore, Rachel Maddow, George Soros.
6) "Yew thank yer purty smart, don't yew?" Usually expressed sarcastically: “Well, I guess not all of us have your wide expertise about movies. We’re all in awe of your knowledge.”
7) Attempts to change the subject:
“Well, Tom Cruise was in Top Gun and he’s a liberal and he’s crazy!”
8) Projection, or “I know you are, but what am I?” Example:
9) “I’m not your Google monkey”: making a wild and untrue assertion and insisting its the reader's responsibility to back it up for you or to disprove it:
“I know for a fact that Anthony Michael Hall was the star of Footloose.”
“That doesn’t sound right. Can you cite some source that backs that up?”
“I don’t have to back that up. You look it up!”
10) "Help! Help! I'm bein' repressed!" Asserting that because you're "entitled to your opinion." that any disagreement is an attempt to stifle your free speech rights.
11) Extreme leaps, often bizarre, usually off-topic:
"Kevin Bacon was the star of Footloose, not Anthony Michael Hall."
"So you're saying Anthony Michael Hall is a lousy actor and probably a child molester!?"
Watch for these BSWATs . See how many you can tag.
1) The simple unsupported contradiction and the repeated assertion of a demonstrably wrong premise as “Fact.” This clip from ”Family Guy” illustrates the technique:
2) A similar technique: dismissing the argument out of hand, without attempt to debate:
"Kevin Bacon was the star of Footloose."
"That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard." (leaves discussion).
3) Ignoring what was said in favor of whining about the way it was said.
Example:
“Of course Kevin Bacon was in Footloose. Here’s the DVD box, you idiot. His name’s right there.”
”You called me a name! You libs don’t have any arguments. All you do is insult people.”
4) Handwaving away any information that contradicts you by dismissing the source out of hand.
“Look, Kevin Bacon starred in Footloose. It says so right here in the Internet Movie Database.”
“IMDB? LOL.”
5) Dragging some irrelevant celebrity bogeyman’s name into the conversation:
“Keith Olbermann thinks Kevin Bacon starred in Footloose, too. You sound like Keith Olbermann.” Other names used: Michael Moore, Rachel Maddow, George Soros.
6) "Yew thank yer purty smart, don't yew?" Usually expressed sarcastically: “Well, I guess not all of us have your wide expertise about movies. We’re all in awe of your knowledge.”
7) Attempts to change the subject:
“Well, Tom Cruise was in Top Gun and he’s a liberal and he’s crazy!”
8) Projection, or “I know you are, but what am I?” Example:
9) “I’m not your Google monkey”: making a wild and untrue assertion and insisting its the reader's responsibility to back it up for you or to disprove it:
“I know for a fact that Anthony Michael Hall was the star of Footloose.”
“That doesn’t sound right. Can you cite some source that backs that up?”
“I don’t have to back that up. You look it up!”
10) "Help! Help! I'm bein' repressed!" Asserting that because you're "entitled to your opinion." that any disagreement is an attempt to stifle your free speech rights.
11) Extreme leaps, often bizarre, usually off-topic:
"Kevin Bacon was the star of Footloose, not Anthony Michael Hall."
"So you're saying Anthony Michael Hall is a lousy actor and probably a child molester!?"
Watch for these BSWATs . See how many you can tag.
Tuesday, 26 October 2010
The Party of Love Strikes (or should I say stomps) Again
Rand Paul Supporter Stomps Head Of Female MoveOn Member Outside KY Debate (VIDEO) | TPMDC
..always— do not forget this, Winston— always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.
But don't forget...it's liberals who are angry and full of hate.
Saturday, 23 October 2010
Nope, No Crazies Here...
GOP Candidate: Violent Revolution “On Table” | FrumForum
Republican congressional candidate Stephen Broden stunned his party Thursday, saying he would not rule out violent overthrow of the government if elections did not produce a change in leadership.
In a rambling exchange during a TV interview, Broden, a South Dallas pastor, said a violent uprising “is not the first option,” but it is “on the table.” That drew a quick denunciation from the head of the Dallas County GOP, who called the remarks “inappropriate.”
Nope, no crazies in the Tea Party, none at all....
Republican congressional candidate Stephen Broden stunned his party Thursday, saying he would not rule out violent overthrow of the government if elections did not produce a change in leadership.
In a rambling exchange during a TV interview, Broden, a South Dallas pastor, said a violent uprising “is not the first option,” but it is “on the table.” That drew a quick denunciation from the head of the Dallas County GOP, who called the remarks “inappropriate.”
Nope, no crazies in the Tea Party, none at all....
Sunday, 17 October 2010
Losing the Ability to Cringe
Latest Newspaper column:
Last week, in my column about New York City's Naked Cowboy and his run for the presidency under the tea party banner, I mentioned that members of America's newest political movement were probably muttering "Don't let him be one of ours, don't let him be one of ours ..."
Turns out I was wrong. A lot of local TPers enthusiastically endorsed the idea of handing the leadership of the greatest country on Earth (including the codes to its nuclear weapons) to a guy whose chief claim to fame is playing songs on a public street in his underwear.
It was then I realized: These people have lost the ability to cringe.
By "cringe," I mean in the dictionary sense of "to recoil in distaste," especially from something that's over the top or downright embarrassing. The cringe reflex can be especially pronounced when that embarrassing act is perpetrated by someone with whom you might feel an affinity.
You cringe, for example, when a relative regales the guests at your dinner party with the gory details of his bladder problems. Celebrities often do things that make even their fans cringe, like Tom Cruise leaping up and down on Oprah's couch, Kanye West grabbing the microphone from Taylor Swift, or John Travolta making "Battlefield Earth."
People and organizations of all political stripes often do things that are cringe-worthy. Jon Stewart once memorably commemorated a particularly over-the-top ad by MoveOn.org by congratulating the group who'd "spent 10 years making even people who agree with you cringe."
But tea partiers? No cringe reflex whatsoever. Rick Perry suggests that Texas might secede if things don't go the Republicans' way? Not a problem! Christine O'Donnell says American companies are making mice with human brains? Hey, the media should quit picking on her by quoting things she actually said! Sarah Palin blatantly lies about "death panels" during the health care debate? Sa-rah! Sa-rah! Sa-rah!
The most recent demonstration of the cringe-free tea party occurred in Ohio's 9th District, where the TP candidate is a fellow named Rod Iott. A recent story in The Atlantic magazine talked about Iott's, shall we say, unusual hobby.
It seems that Iott belongs to a group of World War II re-enactors who like to dress up as the bad guys. Specifically, they like to don the uniforms of the 5th SS Panzer, or "Wiking" division, an elite Nazi force which, among their other activities, rounded up and murdered Jews in Ukraine, Austria and Hungary. The Atlantic story featured photos of Iott in full SS drag.
Imagine for a moment if a Democratic candidate, or any candidate for that matter, was photographed wearing the uniform of one of our country's enemies. Heck, right-wingers like Michelle Malkin flipped out over what they called "'jihadi chic" when Rachael Ray wore a black-and-white checked scarf in a Dunkin' Donuts commercial.
Imagine what they'd do if a picture surfaced of, say, Pennsylvania Senate candidate Joe Sestak dressed in a '50s-era Soviet commissar's uniform. Or, more to the point, imagine what Pennsylvania Democrats would do. They'd cringe. They might even start thinking, "We're sunk."
But not your TPers. While some conservative Republicans like Minority Whip Eric Cantor have repudiated Iott, and the National Republican Congressional Committee has removed him from its list of "contenders" on its website, Iott's county GOP chief still backs him, calling the story "political mudslinging."
Iott, for his part, insists that there's nothing odd or untoward in dressing up like an SS trooper and running around the woods pretending to slaughter enemies of the Reich. After all, as the Wiking re-enactor group says, "no matter how unsavory the Nazi government was, the front-line soldiers of the Waffen-SS (in particular the foreign volunteers) gave their lives for their loved ones and a basic desire to be free."
Right. It was everyone else they wanted to oppress, except the Jews, whom they wanted to exterminate. I guess it's that kind of shamelessness, that ability to rattle off specious claptrap that makes venerating a band of murdering fascists seem like a reasonable thing to do, that gave Iott his training for politics in general and the tea party in particular.
And it's the TP's inability or unwillingness to realize just how cringe-worthy that is that makes them so ridiculous.
Sunday, 10 October 2010
The Naked Cowboy
Latest Newspaper Column:
It sometimes surprises people to know that a simple country lawyer like me really likes New York City. I wouldn't want to live there, mind you (too expensive), but I do enjoy spending time there, walking around the place, taking in the sights, such as the Empire State Building, Central Park, the Naked Cowboy ...
What's that, you say? You don't know about the Naked Cowboy? Well, pull up a chair and give a listen, brethren and sistern, and let me tell you about him.
The Naked Cowboy (real name Robert John Burck) has been a fixture in New York's Times Square for years. He's a street musician who's become so famous that he's got his own stop on the Gray Line tour.
He occasionally goes on tour outside the Big Apple as well, appearing in such places as Austin, Texas; New Orleans at Mardi Gras; and his hometown of Cincinnati for Memorial Day. He's appeared in music videos and TV commercials. He's even franchising the concept - for $5,000 a year, you too can be your own city's Naked Cowboy (or Cowgirl).
It should be noted that the Naked Cowboy does not, in fact, appear entirely naked. That would probably get him arrested, even in New York. He performs his tunes dressed in a cowboy hat, white boots and a strategically placed red, white and blue guitar that covers up the fact he's dressed in his tighty whities.
Now the Naked Cowboy wants to be your president.
On Sept. 29, 2010, the NC appeared, uncharacteristically dressed in a suit and tie and with his long hair cut short, to announce that he planned to challenge Barack Obama in 2012 for leadership of the Free World. And guess which party's banner he plans to run under?
I know some of you tea partiers are probably muttering under your breath, "Don't let him be one of ours, don't let him be one of ours..." I know you've been trying really hard not to look like a party filled with kooks and loons. I feel for you, I really do.
But sorry, guys, he's yours. The Bare Buckaroo is, indeed, a self-declared tea party candidate.
At first, I was thinking that this had to be some sort of joke, like Christine O'Donnell. Then I remembered, O'Donnell's not actually playing it for laughs, even though she begins her most recent campaign ad by denying she's a witch.
(Here's a hint: If you're forced to start off by disavowing earlier videotaped statements that you once practiced the Dark Arts but that you're much better now, you're already way behind on the PR battle.)
No, the Cowboy Formerly Known as Naked was right out there at his opening press conference with a straight face and a mysterious blonde woman (possibly Mrs. Cowboy) by his side. He was spouting that good old tea party line: The Evil Guvmint's taking over everything, so he's going to reduce the civilian federal workforce by 40 percent "or more" (while of course providing no details about which four out of 10 he'd cut).
He also wants to make all welfare recipients take random drug screens (whether there's any evidence they're using drugs or not). He wants to eliminate the federal Department of Education altogether. Asked about his recent occupation, he hesitated for only a brief second before earnestly explaining that "naked is a metaphor for honest."
But wait, he's not really naked, despite the name, so does that mean he's not really honest? If he fakes his nudity, is he faking honesty as well?
Heh. I guess he does fit right into the tea party. He fits right in with the tea partiers who rail against Medicare while opposing cutting payments to doctors like themselves. He fits right in with the millionaires who rant against stimulus money while getting rich off it.
He fits right in with the politicians like Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle, who claims to deplore Washington "backroom" deals and then gets caught on tape trying to make just such a deal, offering an opponent access to power brokers if the opponent will just drop out of the race.
The Naked Cowboy is just trying to do what he's done for years. He's a huckster, a showman, trying to shake a few coins out of the rubes from out of town before hopping on the very gravy train he claims to want to derail.
He's perfect for the tea party.
It sometimes surprises people to know that a simple country lawyer like me really likes New York City. I wouldn't want to live there, mind you (too expensive), but I do enjoy spending time there, walking around the place, taking in the sights, such as the Empire State Building, Central Park, the Naked Cowboy ...
What's that, you say? You don't know about the Naked Cowboy? Well, pull up a chair and give a listen, brethren and sistern, and let me tell you about him.
The Naked Cowboy (real name Robert John Burck) has been a fixture in New York's Times Square for years. He's a street musician who's become so famous that he's got his own stop on the Gray Line tour.
He occasionally goes on tour outside the Big Apple as well, appearing in such places as Austin, Texas; New Orleans at Mardi Gras; and his hometown of Cincinnati for Memorial Day. He's appeared in music videos and TV commercials. He's even franchising the concept - for $5,000 a year, you too can be your own city's Naked Cowboy (or Cowgirl).
It should be noted that the Naked Cowboy does not, in fact, appear entirely naked. That would probably get him arrested, even in New York. He performs his tunes dressed in a cowboy hat, white boots and a strategically placed red, white and blue guitar that covers up the fact he's dressed in his tighty whities.
Now the Naked Cowboy wants to be your president.
On Sept. 29, 2010, the NC appeared, uncharacteristically dressed in a suit and tie and with his long hair cut short, to announce that he planned to challenge Barack Obama in 2012 for leadership of the Free World. And guess which party's banner he plans to run under?
I know some of you tea partiers are probably muttering under your breath, "Don't let him be one of ours, don't let him be one of ours..." I know you've been trying really hard not to look like a party filled with kooks and loons. I feel for you, I really do.
But sorry, guys, he's yours. The Bare Buckaroo is, indeed, a self-declared tea party candidate.
At first, I was thinking that this had to be some sort of joke, like Christine O'Donnell. Then I remembered, O'Donnell's not actually playing it for laughs, even though she begins her most recent campaign ad by denying she's a witch.
(Here's a hint: If you're forced to start off by disavowing earlier videotaped statements that you once practiced the Dark Arts but that you're much better now, you're already way behind on the PR battle.)
No, the Cowboy Formerly Known as Naked was right out there at his opening press conference with a straight face and a mysterious blonde woman (possibly Mrs. Cowboy) by his side. He was spouting that good old tea party line: The Evil Guvmint's taking over everything, so he's going to reduce the civilian federal workforce by 40 percent "or more" (while of course providing no details about which four out of 10 he'd cut).
He also wants to make all welfare recipients take random drug screens (whether there's any evidence they're using drugs or not). He wants to eliminate the federal Department of Education altogether. Asked about his recent occupation, he hesitated for only a brief second before earnestly explaining that "naked is a metaphor for honest."
But wait, he's not really naked, despite the name, so does that mean he's not really honest? If he fakes his nudity, is he faking honesty as well?
Heh. I guess he does fit right into the tea party. He fits right in with the tea partiers who rail against Medicare while opposing cutting payments to doctors like themselves. He fits right in with the millionaires who rant against stimulus money while getting rich off it.
He fits right in with the politicians like Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle, who claims to deplore Washington "backroom" deals and then gets caught on tape trying to make just such a deal, offering an opponent access to power brokers if the opponent will just drop out of the race.
The Naked Cowboy is just trying to do what he's done for years. He's a huckster, a showman, trying to shake a few coins out of the rubes from out of town before hopping on the very gravy train he claims to want to derail.
He's perfect for the tea party.
Sunday, 3 October 2010
It's Not Government Money If It Goes To Me
Latest Newspaper Column:
One of the most famous quotes from the Days of Rage over health care reform was spoken by an elderly gentleman who got all fired up on a steady diet of tea party hysteria and Sarah Palin Tweets and loudly demanded that the "government keep its hands off my Medicare."
At first I saw it as an amusing example of just how misinformed some people could be. Then I began to notice more and more that a lot of the people who were complaining the loudest about the dangers of a single-payer, publicly funded government health insurance program were themselves recipients under just such a program (the aforementioned Medicare).
A recent Rolling Stone article by Matt Taibbi noted the number of people at a tea party event who were riding those little scooters - you know, the ones you see on TV commercials that promise that Medicare will pay 100 percent of the cost. He rather unkindly suggested that "[t]he average tea partier is sincerely against government spending - with the exception of the money spent on them."
There's an alternate explanation, to wit: Tea partiers suffer from a strange form of cognitive dissonance that causes them to think that, if the money's spent on them or folks like them, it's not really government spending at all. It's the kindest explanation I can think of for the tea party's love of certain candidates whose public stances are wildly out of sync with their behavior when they're not campaigning.
Take, for example, Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul. Paul is no fan of Medicare; he's called it "socialized medicine" and is on record proposing that seniors be subject to at least a $2,000 deductible.
"But try selling that during an election," Paul admitted in a 2009 video.
Now it's 2010, and Paul is very, very unhappy that his opponent is using that statement. Quoting him accurately, according to Paul, is "politics in its lowest form." Well, he'll probably scream like a murdered bunny if his rival starts pointing out that the supposedly tight-fisted Paul also opposed a government proposal to cut some Medicare payments to doctors like himself.
He justified this by protesting that he and his fellow physicians "should be able to make a comfortable living." That's the Paul solution: Grandma pays more, Rand Paul keeps his comfortable living. Anyone who'd buy into this must not really think that Paul's getting that Medicare money from the government.
This curious blind spot regarding government money applies to other types of spending as well. Arizona congressional candidate Jesse Kelly, a TP favorite, really hates government spending in general and the federal stimulus in particular.
"It must stop now," Kelly says of the stimulus. "This is bribery with taxpayer money, and it's a disgrace." He also scoffs at the idea that government spending on infrastructure can create jobs. "Government is not a job creator, it's a job crusher," he claims.
Yet, according to an article in The Tucson Weekly, Kelly's company, Don Kelly Construction, gets a whopping 90 percent of its business from federal contracts, including some projects being paid for with that bad old stimulus money. Guess he doesn't realize that government contracts (and therefore the workers he hires to fulfill them) are paid for with taxpayer dollars.
Another TP-backed candidate is Florida gubernatorial hopeful Rick Scott, who also hates, hates, hates the stimulus. According to The Tampa Bay Times, Scott said back on June 2 that he "would fight all the stimulus money" and that Florida "should not have accepted that money."
Perhaps Florida shouldn't have, but when Xfone Inc., a company which lists Scott as a "controlling shareholder," was offered 60 million of those precious taxpayer dollars "to develop high speed Internet infrastructure," Scott put up less of a fight for his virtue than a drunken cheerleader on prom night.
So I have to think that these tea party candidates and the cranky old folks who love them are just suffering from a form of cognitive dissonance brought on by mental illness or possibly a dietary deficiency.
Otherwise, I'd have to believe that they were just unprincipled demagoguing hypocrites who just pretend to care about government spending and only really care that the money's not lining their pockets or being spent by their own people. And that would be terrible, wouldn't it?
One of the most famous quotes from the Days of Rage over health care reform was spoken by an elderly gentleman who got all fired up on a steady diet of tea party hysteria and Sarah Palin Tweets and loudly demanded that the "government keep its hands off my Medicare."
At first I saw it as an amusing example of just how misinformed some people could be. Then I began to notice more and more that a lot of the people who were complaining the loudest about the dangers of a single-payer, publicly funded government health insurance program were themselves recipients under just such a program (the aforementioned Medicare).
A recent Rolling Stone article by Matt Taibbi noted the number of people at a tea party event who were riding those little scooters - you know, the ones you see on TV commercials that promise that Medicare will pay 100 percent of the cost. He rather unkindly suggested that "[t]he average tea partier is sincerely against government spending - with the exception of the money spent on them."
There's an alternate explanation, to wit: Tea partiers suffer from a strange form of cognitive dissonance that causes them to think that, if the money's spent on them or folks like them, it's not really government spending at all. It's the kindest explanation I can think of for the tea party's love of certain candidates whose public stances are wildly out of sync with their behavior when they're not campaigning.
Take, for example, Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul. Paul is no fan of Medicare; he's called it "socialized medicine" and is on record proposing that seniors be subject to at least a $2,000 deductible.
"But try selling that during an election," Paul admitted in a 2009 video.
Now it's 2010, and Paul is very, very unhappy that his opponent is using that statement. Quoting him accurately, according to Paul, is "politics in its lowest form." Well, he'll probably scream like a murdered bunny if his rival starts pointing out that the supposedly tight-fisted Paul also opposed a government proposal to cut some Medicare payments to doctors like himself.
He justified this by protesting that he and his fellow physicians "should be able to make a comfortable living." That's the Paul solution: Grandma pays more, Rand Paul keeps his comfortable living. Anyone who'd buy into this must not really think that Paul's getting that Medicare money from the government.
This curious blind spot regarding government money applies to other types of spending as well. Arizona congressional candidate Jesse Kelly, a TP favorite, really hates government spending in general and the federal stimulus in particular.
"It must stop now," Kelly says of the stimulus. "This is bribery with taxpayer money, and it's a disgrace." He also scoffs at the idea that government spending on infrastructure can create jobs. "Government is not a job creator, it's a job crusher," he claims.
Yet, according to an article in The Tucson Weekly, Kelly's company, Don Kelly Construction, gets a whopping 90 percent of its business from federal contracts, including some projects being paid for with that bad old stimulus money. Guess he doesn't realize that government contracts (and therefore the workers he hires to fulfill them) are paid for with taxpayer dollars.
Another TP-backed candidate is Florida gubernatorial hopeful Rick Scott, who also hates, hates, hates the stimulus. According to The Tampa Bay Times, Scott said back on June 2 that he "would fight all the stimulus money" and that Florida "should not have accepted that money."
Perhaps Florida shouldn't have, but when Xfone Inc., a company which lists Scott as a "controlling shareholder," was offered 60 million of those precious taxpayer dollars "to develop high speed Internet infrastructure," Scott put up less of a fight for his virtue than a drunken cheerleader on prom night.
So I have to think that these tea party candidates and the cranky old folks who love them are just suffering from a form of cognitive dissonance brought on by mental illness or possibly a dietary deficiency.
Otherwise, I'd have to believe that they were just unprincipled demagoguing hypocrites who just pretend to care about government spending and only really care that the money's not lining their pockets or being spent by their own people. And that would be terrible, wouldn't it?
Sunday, 25 July 2010
Lessons Learned? I Wouldn't Bet the Farm On It
Latest Newspaper Column:
It's been, to say the least, an interesting couple of weeks in American race relations. Things kicked off when the NAACP voted, at its annual convention, on a resolution that "condemns the bigoted elements within the tea party and asks for them to be repudiated." Note that the statement doesn't call all TPers racist. And as we know, it's not unusual in American politics for one group to ask another to "repudiate" its more fringe elements - so long as those fringe elements are on the so-called "left."
It's been, to say the least, an interesting couple of weeks in American race relations. Things kicked off when the NAACP voted, at its annual convention, on a resolution that "condemns the bigoted elements within the tea party and asks for them to be repudiated." Note that the statement doesn't call all TPers racist. And as we know, it's not unusual in American politics for one group to ask another to "repudiate" its more fringe elements - so long as those fringe elements are on the so-called "left."
On one occasion, for instance, the late Tim Russert called on Barack Obama to repudiate, of all people, Harry Belafonte, for referring to President George W. Bush as a "terrorist," as if the rantings of an aging calypso star were somehow the responsibility of every black politician.
But, boy howdy, ask the TPers to distance themselves from the people at their rallies who carry signs showing the president as a witch doctor, complete with bone in nose, and just watch their old gray heads explode.
The immediate reaction was to go into their standard attack mode - as always, a variation on the old schoolyard riposte, "I know you are, but what am I?" It was the NAACP, the tea partiers asserted, who were the real racists.
Then the leader of a group called the Tea Party Express, a guy named Mark Williams, published a mock letter from the NAACP to Abraham Lincoln. "We Colored People have taken a vote and decided that we don't cotton to that whole emancipation thing," Williams wrote. "Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house."Nope, no racism there.
Within a few days, Williams was, as requested, repudiated. He and the Tea Party Express were tossed out of the the Tea Party Federation. The NAACP issued a press release commending the federation. A new day of tolerance and understanding dawned in America. Ha ha! Just kidding.
Enter Andrew Breitbart, the man who gave the world the infamous ACORN "pimp" tapes, in which members of the community organizing group were supposedly caught on tape advising a fake pimp and his prostitute how to set up in business and avoid taxes. The tapes were later discovered by the California attorney general's office to have been "heavily edited." They cut out the fact that, among other things, one ACORN worker had called the cops and that the supposed "pimp" (shown in the intro in full Superfly regalia) had actually been dressed in a suit and tie and claimed he was a law student. After that, Breitbart was discredited and never again believed or taken seriously by anyone of any significance. Hee hee! Got you again! Breitbart claimed to have found a tape of a U.S. Department of Agriculture functionary named Shirley Sherrod telling an NAACP group that, in a former job, she hadn't given a white farmer who came to her for help "the full force of what she could do." She'd taken him to a white lawyer ("one of his own kind") and, as the clip ends, left him there. Sherrod found out that the lawyer she'd referred the farmer to hadn't done much. In fact, the poor guy was about to be foreclosed on. At that time, she went on to say, she realized that "it's really about those who have versus those who don't ... and they could be black; they could be white; they could be Hispanic." She got to work, she helped save the man's farm, and she and hisfamily remain friends to this day. He and his wife even went on CNN to try to clear Sherrod's name. Instead of a story of racism, it was a story of overcoming it. The NAACP and the White House apologized and USDA head Tom Vilsack offered Sherrod her job back. She's not sure she wants it, and who can blame her? In the end, everyone learned a valuable lesson. From then on,everyone listened to what other people were actually saying, instead of filtering it through their own prejudices and trying to pick out little out-of-context nuggets to pelt their perceived enemies with.
Tuesday, 6 July 2010
Tea Party Candidate: Stop Telling People What I Said!
Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle is well-known for some nutty and some ominous statements, such as this one:
“You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that second amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact, Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.”“I hope that’s not where we’re going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, ‘my goodness what can we do to turn this country around?’ I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.”
She later retracted the statement--sort of. But she hasn't backed off on her suggestion that her followers might engage in armed insurrection if they don't get their way.
But now, it seems that Angle is threatening to sue the Reid campaign--for reposting what she said on her own Website.
After the former state Rep won Nevada's Republican Senate primary, Angle's campaign took down most of its website, and later replaced it with a relaunched version that in some ways toned down her right-wing rhetoric. But Internet pages are rarely ever forgotten -- the Reid
campaign saved the old version, and put up a website called "The Real Sharron Angle," reproducing the old content.
Then, they say, the Angle campaign sent them a cease-and-desist letter, claiming misuse of copyrighted materials in the reposting of the old website -- which was, of course, being posted for the purposes of ridiculing Angle. The Reid campaign has in fact taken down the site, rerouting visitors to another website that goes after Angle's positions, "Sharron's Underground Bunker."
“You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that second amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact, Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.”“I hope that’s not where we’re going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, ‘my goodness what can we do to turn this country around?’ I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.”
She later retracted the statement--sort of. But she hasn't backed off on her suggestion that her followers might engage in armed insurrection if they don't get their way.
But now, it seems that Angle is threatening to sue the Reid campaign--for reposting what she said on her own Website.
After the former state Rep won Nevada's Republican Senate primary, Angle's campaign took down most of its website, and later replaced it with a relaunched version that in some ways toned down her right-wing rhetoric. But Internet pages are rarely ever forgotten -- the Reid
campaign saved the old version, and put up a website called "The Real Sharron Angle," reproducing the old content.
Then, they say, the Angle campaign sent them a cease-and-desist letter, claiming misuse of copyrighted materials in the reposting of the old website -- which was, of course, being posted for the purposes of ridiculing Angle. The Reid campaign has in fact taken down the site, rerouting visitors to another website that goes after Angle's positions, "Sharron's Underground Bunker."
This is the thing about the TPers: the only way they think they can win is by concealing how nutty most of them really are. And they're willing to go to court to hide what they themselves have said, and to hide their nuttier beliefs until its too late. Fortunately, that's harder and harder to do in the age of the Internet.
Wednesday, 14 April 2010
Say What?
Poll: Most Tea Party Supporters Say Their Taxes Are Fair:
As Tea Partiers gather for today's rally in Boston, home of the original Tea Party protest in 1773, 42 percent of Tea Party supporters think the amount of income taxes they'll pay this year is unfair, according to a new CBS News/ New York Times poll.
Yet while some say the Tea Party stands for "Taxed Enough Already," most Tea Party supporters - 52 percent - say their taxes are fair, the poll shows. Just under one in five Americans say they support the Tea Party movement.
***
Americans overall are more likely than Tea Partiers to describe the income taxes they'll pay this year as fair - 62 percent do, according to the poll, conducted April 5 - 12.
Okay, for over half of them, it's really not about taxes, despite the ostensible name of the "party."
Anyone care to hazard a guess, then, what they're REALLY pissed off about? Could it be, maybe, that what the tea partiers are really up in arms about is that the wrong guy (or the wrong color guy) won?
Friday, 26 March 2010
Too Funny...
Tea Party Advocates Who Scorn Socialism Want a Government Job - Bloomberg.com
March 26 (Bloomberg) -- Tea Party activists, who are becoming a force in U.S. politics, want the federal government out of their lives except when it comes to creating jobs.
Gee, ya think?It's part and parcel with the conservative governors and Congresscritters who screamed and wailed and stomped their feet over the stimulus package, and will still swear that "it hasn't done a thing", then head back home for a ceremony where they take credit for bringing a stimulus funded project to their district.
March 26 (Bloomberg) -- Tea Party activists, who are becoming a force in U.S. politics, want the federal government out of their lives except when it comes to creating jobs.
More than 90 percent of Tea Party backers interviewed in a new Bloomberg National Poll say the U.S. is verging more toward socialism than capitalism, the federal government is trying to control too many aspects of private life and more decisions should be made at the state level.
At the same time, 70 percent of those who sympathize with the Tea Party, which organized protests this week against President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul, want a federal government that fosters job creation.
They also look to the government to rein in Wall Street, with almost half saying the government should do something about executive bonuses. Supporters are also conflicted over whether private-enterprise elements should be introduced into government programs like Social Security and Medicare.
“The ideas that find nearly universal agreement among Tea Party supporters are rather vague,” says J. Ann Selzer, the pollster who created the survey.Gee, ya think?
It's part and parcel with the conservative governors and Congresscritters who screamed and wailed and stomped their feet over the stimulus package, and will still swear that "it hasn't done a thing", then head back home for a ceremony where they take credit for bringing a stimulus funded project to their district.
I swear, these people remind me of nothing so much as a teenager screaming to her mother "I HATE YOU! Now give me a ride to the mall!"
Wednesday, 17 March 2010
Why We Fight
Teabaggers mock and jeer at a protester with Parkinson's disease:
I particularly liked the guy throwing money at him with such obvious rage and contempt.
The card at the end says it all: "If They Win, We Lose."
But don't ever forget, it's the liberals who are filled with hate.
I particularly liked the guy throwing money at him with such obvious rage and contempt.
The card at the end says it all: "If They Win, We Lose."
But don't ever forget, it's the liberals who are filled with hate.
Saturday, 12 September 2009
That's What I've Been Trying to Tell You
The Party of Love continues to show its class with signs like this one at a "9/12" Teabagger event.
GOP Sees Protest As an Opportunity - washingtonpost.com
Mark McKinnon, a former adviser to Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and other Republicans, said there is an "opportunity for Republicans" to tap into legitimate fears about an overreaching federal government. But he said that "right-wing nutballs are aligning themselves with these movements" and are dominating media coverage.
"It's bad for Republicans because in the absence of any real leadership, the freaks fill the void and define the party," McKinnon said.
Sorry, Mark, that horse has gone and left the barn a while ago. Oh, sure, the Democrats have their share of nutballs and crazy conspiracy theorists. Cynthia McKinney comes immediately to mind.
But they don't let them run the damn party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)