(Pssst, I'm down here. I'm staying out of the way while Mallard helps the Republican Party implode.)
19 comments:
Factinista
said...
I remember watching the News Hour a few weeks ago, and David Brooks was commenting on how a group of Republicans had considered using town-hall meetings to hear what regular people wanted them to be doing. The idea was shot down, the reason being that Republicans already know what they believe.
Sure, everything they do now is counterproductive and is killing their party, but hey, at least they're sticking to their guns.
With any luck, in a month or so he'll run a similar comic about Norm Coleman. And maybe Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe.
It was pretty funny hearing Eric Cantor backtrack on his Republican "listening tour" after Limbaugh slammed the idea that Republicans need to listen to anyone.
At some point you might think the Republicans would say, We keep losing elections and losing people - maybe we're doing something wrong? Instead, the response is invariably "It's because they're SOCIALISTS Who HATE AMERICA booga booga booga!!!!"
And then there's also the frantic undercurrent of "It's good that Rush sent another non-believer to the corn field! It's very, very good!" Republican implosion is getting to rival the NFL as my favorite spectator sport.
Naturally the Duck, having no capability for sober or independent thought, will remain loyal to the increasingly bitter end.
As an actual liberal, not just a straw-liberal, I'm torn about this whole thing.
I *want* the democrats to have a strong opposition party. They're just as prone to corruption and stupid mistakes as any political party, and I firmly believe that having a competitor at their throats would be the BEST way to keep them honest and force them to think about their actions.
On the other hand, since I've normally been on the side of the Amazing Self-Sabotaging Party, it's both fascinating, repulsive, and yet hilarious (kinda like a car wreck... involving two clown cars) to watch the other side tear itself apart for once.
My higher functioning brain hopes the fiscal conservatives come back and provide some serious arguments and keep a light on what the democrats are doing. My baser brain is lovin' the delicious schadenfreude and cheering every time Palin throws herself back into the spotlight.
At least one, Rush Limbaugh, makes much more money as the leader of a dwindling faction than as merely a media figure serving a majority party. He profits from the decline. One suspects that many of the other extremists could get ahead only in a small party, where there's less competition from smart people.
To expand on Hibyrd's point, ideally I would like to see this Republican purge turn the GOP into the 21st Century Dixiecrats. The Democrats can be centrist and perhaps an actual, viable left wing party can emerge.
Ironic that the "loss" of Specter comes right before Obama adopts even more Bush era policies, such as the hideous military tribunals, along with keeping the torture photos secret, maintaining illegal wiretapping, etc. Getting so it's pretty hard to choose any more. Naderite
Rather than comment on the political statement today (my fellow commenters have already bested me), I'd just like to note that Mallard seems to be trying to cover up for Tinsley's lead time. "Really, I'm only covering this two weeks late because of the outrage! Not because my jokes are irrelevant!" Chortle.
For decades now what passed for political discussion in this country has been between the right, and the far right. Obama is like Clinton - a centrist leaning conservative. I'm not a bit surprised by his Bushian tendencies (though I am deeply disappinted.) At some level, both parties are part of the same corporatocracy. It's just that the Repugnicants are tucked a bit deeper into their pockets.
I hope Kyle is right. There is plenty of room on the left. But the system seems rigged to the current two.
It's a shame Jimmy Carter's presidency went so poorly. He was the last truly liberal President. When was the last time a non-centrist Democrat even had a shot? Does Howard Dean pre-scream count as being viable?
I laughed during the '04 election whenever some right wing squawker would prattle on about John Kerry as the "Most Liberal Senator Ever!" I would always say, "Sheesh, I wish!"
Obama is popular enough and I feel a large enough portion of the population has tired of right wing policy that he has the capital needed to push a more progressive agenda. But jeez, do it already!
Prefixing "Two weeks later ..." is a delightfully transparent attempt to deal with the problem of RNC talking points that flop within the time it takes for information-technology-savvy liberals to debunk them. Perhaps AnonyTinkley has been taking to heart some of the criticism here?
To be helpful, let's suggest some additional lead-ins:
"Years after Global Warming Deniers became figures of fun ..."
"Nearly a decade after anyone sane stopped caring about Bill Clinton's sex life ..."
"Over a century after the Republican Party turned against the America worker ..."
- or simply -
"Weeks after the latest RNC talking point was debunked, I'm still flogging it ... because that's my job."
Gee, Mr. Hibryd, you talk purdier than a $20 whore!
As many have pointed out, there are many bad things that can happen from the Democrats running virtually unopposed. However, I'm having simply too much fun watching Tinsley, Limbaugh, etc. try to explain away the implosion of their party as not just a flesh wound, but for the best.
A spektic might say some Gops are jumping ship because they know there's no future on that side of the aisle. A cynic might suspect it's that, plus the differences seem to be mostly cosmetic lately (or at least it seems that way without knowing just what idiotic doctrinal moves a hypothetical President Grumpyoldman would be pulling by now).
I think that's the scary thing, Kip. I would personally rate Obama on the 60/40 side of good-to-bad policy thus far. If that was field goal percentage on the basketball court he'd be a Hall of Famer, but when it comes to making policy I hope for a much better ratio. (Perhaps more like Calvin Murphy from the free throw line instead of Kevin McHale from the floor if you're a hoop nerd like me!)
That said, a 3:2 ratio is light years ahead of what a hypothetical President McCain would have instituted. Scary. America should be able to aspire to more than "slightly better than mediocre" and "not a war mongering robber baron."
Interestingly enough, as centrist as he is Obama is portrayed as ultra-liberal. When compared to other Democrats he kinda is: Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh, Kirsten Gillibrand, and now Arlen Specter. Therein lies the problem. A centrist like Obama really is pretty far left on the scale but only because the scale is pushed far to the right.
But again, if all this ultimately means the GOP goes the way of the Whig, Know-Nothing and Dixiecrat Parties and the general debate can eventually be pushed further left, I can live with centrist decency in the interim.
19 comments:
I remember watching the News Hour a few weeks ago, and David Brooks was commenting on how a group of Republicans had considered using town-hall meetings to hear what regular people wanted them to be doing. The idea was shot down, the reason being that Republicans already know what they believe.
Sure, everything they do now is counterproductive and is killing their party, but hey, at least they're sticking to their guns.
Funny how the neocons act like they're the silent majority when they seem to just keep losing people.
Wow, Mallard, purge much?
I wonder if Mallard has heard of the No True Scotsman fallacy, because he just used it.
With any luck, in a month or so he'll run a similar comic about Norm Coleman. And maybe Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe.
It was pretty funny hearing Eric Cantor backtrack on his Republican "listening tour" after Limbaugh slammed the idea that Republicans need to listen to anyone.
At some point you might think the Republicans would say, We keep losing elections and losing people - maybe we're doing something wrong? Instead, the response is invariably "It's because they're SOCIALISTS Who HATE AMERICA booga booga booga!!!!"
And then there's also the frantic undercurrent of "It's good that Rush sent another non-believer to the corn field! It's very, very good!" Republican implosion is getting to rival the NFL as my favorite spectator sport.
Naturally the Duck, having no capability for sober or independent thought, will remain loyal to the increasingly bitter end.
For someone who watches so much fucking TV, you'd think that Tinkle-lard would have long-ago noticed the "(R-PA)" after Specter's name.
More purging:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SU8-CHS_pMY
The tent just keeps getting smaller and smaller...
As an actual liberal, not just a straw-liberal, I'm torn about this whole thing.
I *want* the democrats to have a strong opposition party. They're just as prone to corruption and stupid mistakes as any political party, and I firmly believe that having a competitor at their throats would be the BEST way to keep them honest and force them to think about their actions.
On the other hand, since I've normally been on the side of the Amazing Self-Sabotaging Party, it's both fascinating, repulsive, and yet hilarious (kinda like a car wreck... involving two clown cars) to watch the other side tear itself apart for once.
My higher functioning brain hopes the fiscal conservatives come back and provide some serious arguments and keep a light on what the democrats are doing. My baser brain is lovin' the delicious schadenfreude and cheering every time Palin throws herself back into the spotlight.
Why do Republican leaders favor a purge?
At least one, Rush Limbaugh, makes much more money as the leader of a dwindling faction than as merely a media figure serving a majority party. He profits from the decline. One suspects that many of the other extremists could get ahead only in a small party, where there's less competition from smart people.
As Rush's mentor and future landlord says, "Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav'n."==========
Baskerville : I'd never heard of the No True Scotsman fallacy, so you made me look it up. It's perfect for today's "comic".
====
exanonymous: No longer a Silent Majority, the cons are now an Overly Noisy Minority.
To expand on Hibyrd's point, ideally I would like to see this Republican purge turn the GOP into the 21st Century Dixiecrats. The Democrats can be centrist and perhaps an actual, viable left wing party can emerge.
Ironic that the "loss" of Specter comes right before Obama adopts even more Bush era policies, such as the hideous military tribunals, along with keeping the torture photos secret, maintaining illegal wiretapping, etc. Getting so it's pretty hard to choose any more.
Naderite
Rather than comment on the political statement today (my fellow commenters have already bested me), I'd just like to note that Mallard seems to be trying to cover up for Tinsley's lead time. "Really, I'm only covering this two weeks late because of the outrage! Not because my jokes are irrelevant!" Chortle.
For decades now what passed for political discussion in this country has been between the right, and the far right. Obama is like Clinton - a centrist leaning conservative. I'm not a bit surprised by his Bushian tendencies (though
I am deeply disappinted.) At some level, both parties are part of the same corporatocracy. It's just that the Repugnicants are tucked a bit deeper into their pockets.
I hope Kyle is right. There is plenty of room on the left. But the system seems rigged to the current two.
It's a shame Jimmy Carter's presidency went so poorly. He was the last truly liberal President. When was the last time a non-centrist Democrat even had a shot? Does Howard Dean pre-scream count as being viable?
I laughed during the '04 election whenever some right wing squawker would prattle on about John Kerry as the "Most Liberal Senator Ever!" I would always say, "Sheesh, I wish!"
Obama is popular enough and I feel a large enough portion of the population has tired of right wing policy that he has the capital needed to push a more progressive agenda. But jeez, do it already!
@Rebochan - good catch!
Prefixing "Two weeks later ..." is a delightfully transparent attempt to deal with the problem of RNC talking points that flop within the time it takes for information-technology-savvy liberals to debunk them. Perhaps AnonyTinkley has been taking to heart some of the criticism here?
To be helpful, let's suggest some additional lead-ins:
"Years after Global Warming Deniers became figures of fun ..."
"Nearly a decade after anyone sane stopped caring about Bill Clinton's sex life ..."
"Over a century after the Republican Party turned against the America worker ..."
- or simply -
"Weeks after the latest RNC talking point was debunked, I'm still flogging it ... because that's my job."
Gee, Mr. Hibryd, you talk purdier than a $20 whore!
As many have pointed out, there are many bad things that can happen from the Democrats running virtually unopposed. However, I'm having simply too much fun watching Tinsley, Limbaugh, etc. try to explain away the implosion of their party as not just a flesh wound, but for the best.
A spektic might say some Gops are jumping ship because they know there's no future on that side of the aisle. A cynic might suspect it's that, plus the differences seem to be mostly cosmetic lately (or at least it seems that way without knowing just what idiotic doctrinal moves a hypothetical President Grumpyoldman would be pulling by now).
I think that's the scary thing, Kip. I would personally rate Obama on the 60/40 side of good-to-bad policy thus far. If that was field goal percentage on the basketball court he'd be a Hall of Famer, but when it comes to making policy I hope for a much better ratio. (Perhaps more like Calvin Murphy from the free throw line instead of Kevin McHale from the floor if you're a hoop nerd like me!)
That said, a 3:2 ratio is light years ahead of what a hypothetical President McCain would have instituted. Scary. America should be able to aspire to more than "slightly better than mediocre" and "not a war mongering robber baron."
Interestingly enough, as centrist as he is Obama is portrayed as ultra-liberal. When compared to other Democrats he kinda is: Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh, Kirsten Gillibrand, and now Arlen Specter. Therein lies the problem. A centrist like Obama really is pretty far left on the scale but only because the scale is pushed far to the right.
But again, if all this ultimately means the GOP goes the way of the Whig, Know-Nothing and Dixiecrat Parties and the general debate can eventually be pushed further left, I can live with centrist decency in the interim.
Post a Comment