This will be somewhat brief, but things are going to get epic Wednesday.

I am not the least bit sure how to feel about this:

This was an online poll conducted by, home of intellectual heavyweights like Erick Erickson, on the 2012 GOP nomination. Ignore the results, which are beyond meaningless for a "poll" lacking even the pretense of random sampling (note that talk radio hack Herman Cain managed to goad a good number of listeners into participating). Just forget all of that for a moment and focus on a more basic issue: have you ever seen a bigger collection of retreads, stiffs, and losers in your life?

Part of me thinks this is a blessing and the other half is flat-out terrified that we will be saddled with one of these dipshits as our next president.

It is quite plausible that this could turn into another Sharron Angle / Christine O'Donnell situation in which the GOP primaries turn out the one and only candidate that Obama can defeat. Yes, he has a lot of problems right now, but as elections like 2004 and 1996 have taught us, unpopularity isn't enough to guarantee the defeat of an incumbent president. The other side still has to come up with a half-decent candidate. The only ones here who look like they could pose a serious threat are the ones with no chance of making it out of the primaries. Let's be honest: that Haley Barbour is a legitimate candidate shows you how hard up the GOP is for a candidate. From this perspective, inasmuch as Obama has been pathetic but is preferable to the alternatives, we should be thrilled that their field is so poor.

On the other hand, what if they win anyway? What if a large portion of the people who turned out in 2008 to cast a vote for ol' BO register their disgust by staying home? What if Teabaggin' continues to fascinate the media disproportionately? What if, as the American public is wont to do, voters just fall for a big line of crap from a moron with a good marketing team? Well, then we're stuck with another empty suit who hands the keys to the country over to Wall Street and basically spends four years on vacation or entertaining him/herself with the endless wars.

Oh, wait.

53 thoughts on “BLESSING, CURSE”

  • Ever since President Clinton played the saxophone on TV, and the big poll for Dubya was "who would you rather have a beer with", and Sarah Palin got herself a non-reality-TV campaign commercial, and California elected the Governator, and …

    I think we love celebrities more than executives. (That, in some cases, they coincide is not the point.)

    Sarah Palin is *obviously* the next GOP candidate. What is less clear to me is whether or not she can win. Please set my mind at ease. If her fans can figure out how, they *will* vote. And there are a lot of them in the "not-party-affiliated" group. But those of us who are disgusted by her very presence on the flat-panel are, for the most part, party-affiliated people who voted, before.

    I'm afraid she wins, in a landslide.

  • No fucking way Sarah Palin wins in a landslide. She doesn't have THAT many fans, despite the number of Mama Grizzlies who can make a t-shirt.

    And all the complaining (some of it quite justified) about how corporatist the Obama WH is ignores an important fact, one that allowed Ralph Nader to fuck up the future for us–if you (perhaps correctly) think there isn't a bit of difference bertween the parties at the top, just look beneath the top-tickets and down the bill to the circuit judges, and the sheriff's departments, and the school boards, the water plant managers, and et cetera and so forth and the Iraq and like such as. That's where Reagan and Bush did a lot of their fucking damage. So lest you think we're just voting for one suit, remember what Ralph Nader's Fuckin' Ass did for us ten years ago and check yourself.

  • Hazy Davy, my opinion is the opposite of yours. Palin has fans, and they are quite vocal, and their numbers are not negiligible. But I doubt very much that they're enough to get her 270 electoral votes. There are still enough people who consider her a joke that, if it comes to putting your vote where your mouth is, she'd get a miserable finish.

    Consider the ammunition against her: not just her ignorance of the facts and issues, and her post-campaign smearing of the McCain staffers who were trying to get her to the vice-presidency, but also the inescapable record of having become governor and then walked away in favor of money-making gigs.

    If the Republicans can set one serious candidate, or even Mitt Romney, to face her in the primaries, there's no way she'd get the nomination. And if she ran for President as an independent, she could probably do, at most, as well as Ross Perot did in '92.

  • "Who the fuck is Herman Cain?"

    Talk radio host down here in Georgia. He's in the 7:00pm-10:00pm slot on AM750, the de-facto talk radio station in the state. He fills in the gap between their big syndicated content, and the late-night "We want to nab the super-paranoid ultra-nationalists but even *we* are embarassed to be playing this guy" Michael Savage show. He's pretty much a slightly more mild-mannerd Neil Boortz that provides Georgia rednecks their "there ain't no more racism!" card because, hey, he's a black guy and he says it.

    Called into his show once. The topic was about how the NAACP was so over-the-top with "DAH RAYCE CAHD". I pointed out how the "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" meme from the right was an obvious thinly-veiled dog whistle, seeing as nobody says "William JEFFERSON Clinton" or "George WALKER Bush", and he just brushed it off with the radio host equivalent of "whatever man!". He pretty much exists to make the right-wing racists feel better about themselves.

  • @ John

    Cain also ran for the U.S. Senate in, oh about 2002, IIRC. He lost in the primary.

    @ Hazy Davy
    Palin's approval rating with GOPers is something like 30 percent.
    Several things are not in her favor: Republicans tend to nominate the person whose turn it is (think Bob Dole). I don't know who currently holds that mantle, but it sure as hell isn't her. Again, she is viewed unfavorably by the majority of Republicans. And having quit the governorship and scandals will be a hindrance.
    That being said, the Republicans' winner-take-all primary system definitely plays to her. If she can do well in the first few primaries and then hit South Carolina where she helped the governor get elected, the momentum she builds could propel her to the nomination.
    Winning the presidency would be another matter. She is viewed as a total moron of a loon by, well, everybody with two functioning brain cells. I'd like to think the only way she could win is if two days before the election Obama is caught — on camera — raping a white child on the White House lawn while screaming pro-Communist slogans.
    This being America and all, I fear that somehow, some way Palin would manage to win. At which point Canada would look really good … except for the fact that is would not be far enough away from her.

  • The political content for this site is getting old. Consistently pointing out the fact that the right wing is filled with perhaps the stupidest people on earth gets old after awhile. Hate to say it but Ed needs to find a bit more depth in his political views. To date, I've not seen anything that would indicate that he's nothing more than a big government liberal with tired ideas. It's a shame because he appears to be a young guy with a creative mind. However, you might as well be a doorknob GOPer if your only response to the idiocy on the right is to find a thousand ways to expose it. When the shit hits the fan in the next couple of years, we're all going to wish we'd put forth a bit more effort in trying to figure out how to solve our problems rather than attempting to blame someone. My main new year’s resolution will be to stop the blame game. In a sinking boat, who looks more the fool? The one who created the hole in the boat or the one who keeps pointing out that it was the other guy's fault. At some point, unless you are willing to start bailing, those who actually desire to stay afloat will eventually throw both the perpetrator and the accuser over board. Merry Christmas.

  • I've had this same kind of mixed attitude on a Palin candidacy for quite some time now, and others are also beginning to articulate it. On the one hand, she's just plain too stupid to be electable. But that assumes a rational and informed electorate. The pitfall becomes all too credible when viewed in this light. I recall watching the first Bush/Gore debate and thinking "My God, this guy's an idiot! How can anyone take him seriously?" What we failed to factor in was the power of having your father's supreme court (Most rich kids just get the platinum card). The "it can't happen here" mantra has made a generation of Americans politically disinterested, while our corporate media dumbs down their coverage, reducing campaigns to sporting events. With the recent Citizens United ruling, falsely conflating the dictum that money talks with the first amendment, Wall Street can install the useful idiot of their choice.

  • Hey folks – the same people who gave us the 2010 midterms are the same folks who will give us Palin-Ryan in 2012.

    While I am no fan of the right wing tea partiers, let's not kid ourselves. When Obama won I seem to remember a lot of talk on this very site about how all us good libruls just turned the GOP into a regional party.

    Guess what, two years later the GOP made sure the Democratic Party will be cut out of redistricting and the majorities will remain tough to change for ten years.

    You might be right about *who* the GOP and teapartiers are, Ed.

    But what are we gonna *do* about it?

  • I don't understand how you can be "terrified" of having one of these GOP fucknuts as president, and be so down on Obama at the same time. Either he's significantly better than the Republican alternative and you should therefore quit your bitching and get on the damn bus, or he's not and there should be no need to fear a GOP candidate.

    I love this blog, but you've got the emo cranked up to 11 on Obama lately. It's annoying, and it's irrational.

  • Hey, there's the fucking door. How about you start your own blog of brilliant solutions – who can forget the time you tried to straighten out us kooky feminists by recommending we read Laura Gottlieb? – and I'll swing by and tell you what you should write about.

  • I don't understand how you can be "terrified" of having one of these GOP fucknuts as president, and be so down on Obama at the same time.

    Yeah Ed, I don't understand how on the one hand you can recoil in horror at the prospect of a Palin presidency and simultaneously point out things you don't like about the current administration. How on Earth do you manage to hold two non-mutually exclusive ideas in your brain at once?

  • I hate it when people answer a question with a question, but Ed this is your space so I'll abide by your rules…

    I do the following:

    *volunteer for candidates I believe in – by doing things like talking to neighbors, doing doors, making phone calls and writing checks

    *get other people I work with, I know socially and family to do the above

    *engage in policy discussions – not political discussions – whenever I can

    I love this blog and have for a long time (I've been a regular visitor since 2005 when I was actually looking for gin reviews)

  • I find it hard to believe that Sarah Palin will win in a landslide, she scares the crap out of too many sane people. There are *some* sane Republicans. They can read the polls & talk to the McCain people who had such problems with her. They know what her high negatives & refusal to be "handled" means. They will gather in whatever is the equivalent of the GOP smoke-filled room (I dunno, a Bible study or some such bullshit? Bohemian Grove barbecue?) and shut her down if she indicates she is serious about running.

    She is very useful to them as a fundraiser and a crowd draw, but we're already seeing the GOP power players dropping little burs under her saddle.

  • @BK – What makes you think Ed doesn't already do things, that in his opinion, will rectify our situation?

    G&T provides political commentary; it is not a how-to guide for political participation. Right now, for those of the left-leaning persuasion, the political situation is bleak and that's what the left-leaning commentary is going to reflect.

    BTW, your friends and co-workers must really love that you try to get them to man phone banks and engage in policy discussions whenever you can. You must be a real winner at parties.

  • @BK: That all sounds nice but that isn't going to work in the world that we live in. Have you ever tried to have a policy discussion with someone where it counts right now? I'm not talking about sitting around with your friends talking about things that need to happen, I'm talking engaging in a conversation with someone whose mind you want to change. I've tried with my father (a rural Maine conservative who gets his knowledge from Glenn Beck) and my husband's mom (an upper middle class stay at home mom) to no avail. Once you start saying things that negate their view, ESPECIALLY if you have legal precedence or, you know, intelligent FACTS that they could look up and verify for themselves, they start blurting the same lines over and over.

    "If only the federal gub'mint would do it's job, states wouldn't have to pass these immigration laws."

    "Sometimes the opposite view can seem radical but we'll have to agree to disagree."

    The problem here is that the Republicans/Tea Partiers think we are dealing in opinions and feelings, when in actuality there are facts and realities to be had. They don't want those though and so while you are approaching an argument or "policy discussion" well armed with information, they come well armed with their "beliefs" which include that global warming doesn't exist, that Obama is a socialist, that brown people are all Mexican, and our school teachers should all be fired and kids should get vouchers to go wherever they want.

    You can't reason with these people. You can't talk to them. Most importantly you can't convince them. Of anything. My fear is that these people are growing in numbers while the Obama supporters from 2008 are still reasonable people but might just say "Fuck you" and not vote or vote for Mickey Mouse or something and then BAM! We have Sarah Palin as president.

    I guess I like reading Ed's blog because he's honest about the situation. I can put on rose colored glasses all by myself. I can see the silver lining to all of this bullshit. But because of my lack of political knowledge, it helps to have someone tell it like it is.

  • You seem like the type of person I could have drinks with. You seem like you’ve got a good sense of humour. However, if an idea is a good one (and I am not saying that Lori Gottlieb’s piece was necessarily good) do you disparage it because of who initiated the idea? It seems like you are doing exactly what you’ve criticized the academic community of doing to you during your application process: classifying you according to who you are or what you represent rather than attempting to see your ideas only. I am 37 years old. I still have a lot of anger about how things have played out over the past 20 years for my self and for my country. But, I am trying to let go of that anger because it is literally starting to kill me. It is completely unhelpful. I’ve seen and done a lot in this country since I got out of Beloit in 92. I now work and live in the DC area where I grew up. I can honestly tell you that our ship of state is definitely headed for the rocks based upon what I am seeing here. If we can’t work with the Right at least we can say, as progressives, as forward thinking people, that we tried to find solutions. I’ve thought a lot about starting my own blog. I may just do that. I’ve appreciated the opportunity that your blog has given me to help me find my own political voice through being so open with your own process. I can’t say that it’s a mature voice (mine) yet, perhaps it never will be nor should be, but it is a voice that is developing and, I think, helping others to challenge themselves in how they think about our country. I like this blog overall. I will continue to look at it and contribute. If I do start my own blog, I’ll let you know. In any case, I apologize if I was overly critical.

  • @Fifth Dentist, about the Republicans and the "It's my turn" type of thinking – If that was so, what on Earth happened 10 years ago with McCain and Bush? I always wondered why W "jumped the line" so to speak.

  • What I found most revealing about the RedState poll was that Newt Gingrich didn't even make the original list. And Newt's from Georgia, RedState's home!

  • Almost as irritating as the teabaggers and their batshit conspiracy theories are democrats who blame progressives who are not democrats for lost elections. Next time take a good long look at the broke- dick candidates put up by the DLC and which corporations give them money to run.

  • Have you ever tried to have a policy discussion with someone where it counts right now?

    Saw a bumper sticker today that read "Abortion is NOT healthcare!" And I wanted to scream "Which is why abortion was NOT covered in the healthcare bill, asshole!"


  • I discovered yesterday that Chris Hedges has represented a point of view re: corporatocracy aka "inverted totalitarianism" that I'd been piecing together for myself.

    With the new SCOTUS ruling about PAC non-disclosures, the king-making possibilities of corporations are that much more pronounced, no? I say they can play king-maker (or queen-maker) with ease now, catapult anyone onto the national scene and sell him/her like the latest fad. Fox and the MSM get behind this cypher and before you know it the nation is charmed, sold, buying the T-shirts and bumper stickers. How many most-likely lists was Dubya on, back when? And who knew Obama six years ago?

    I say the next Republican nominee may not even be on Ed's list. If corporations find someone suitable, telegenic, Christian, willing to read the right lines, bingo. They don't need to be great at "retail politics" with Big Media behind them. Tell me I'm too simplistic.

  • Screamin' Demon says:

    "At which point Canada would look really good … except for the fact that is would not be far enough away from her."

    If you want to put a lot of distance between you and a possible President Palin, be advised that New Zealand welcomes immigrants, particularly those whose skills are in particular demand (education, engineering, construction.) I'm keeping my options open.

  • Between the pox-on-both-houses cynicism of the left and the Republicans' genius at frame control, methinks the Rs could nominate Snooki and win, right now. It only remains to see how badly they'll fuck up in the next two years and how well they'll scapegoat Obama. I just don't think Obama can come back at this point – he's on the fast track to Carterdom. But if the GOP keeps catering to teabaggers and fucks up its "mandate" as badly as it probably will, it could nominate Palin or John fucking Bolton and lose badly.

  • I am here to the end.

    Even though I devoutly believe that you Lefties will prevail. (I won't rerun my scenario till late next year – assuming I am here and the FCC hasn't got us all by the S&Cs)

    I wish you pouty, bitchy Lefties would quit teasin' and GO! As we say in GA, "Delta is ready when you are!"

    Wasn't it Alec Baldwin, Commandante of the Hollywood Left, who promised he would leave if W got re-elected? Still here suckin' up his millions (good for him as a Capitalist), but a political tease nonetheless.


  • None of these candidates have any chance of winning an election.

    In elections up to and including House races, all politics are local. Only Senate and Presidential politics really, truly follow national trends. Most of the people listed here could win the bulk of the south minus Florida, North Carolina and Virginia, Indiana, and the tumbleweed basket.

    But if you're telling me that Barbour or Palin or their ilk could walk in and win Colorado or Michigan or even Ohio is, frankly, batshit crazy.

    Now Jeb Bush, on the other hand, could be formidable, but there isn't enough space in the rearview mirror on that last name to make him viable. Yet.

  • @ Amanda – I have those conversations every day – I am a lobbyist for an agency that provides health care to low income, typically uninsured and usually very ill people. I work in a purple state and have worked folks on both ends of the political spectrum and many in between.

    The problem is that too many people get all fired up on the inter-webs, spout off about how smart they are and how dumb the other people are but don't ever engage in the type of activities that actually change minds – and in this case I don't mean Ed… I know he's busy helping to form young minds.

    I am as guilty as anyone else for coming here and feeling better about myself after reading a post in which Ed makes all the points I *try* to in ways that are typically more pointed and humorous and are always better written.

    What I am trying to have everyone remember is that it can't stop there – or with a reposting on your Facespace page.

    My original post was less of a challenge to Ed and more of a challenge to what I am assuming (and I shudder as I write that) are the thousands of readers who come here every day, nod in agreement, but don't translate what they read into action.

  • Monkey Business says:

    My hope for America is not yet extinguished, so I still believe that if the GOP trotted out any of these chuckleheads as a candidate Obama would thump them soundly.

    The GOP's primary system lends itself to turning out crazies. Thinking Sarah Palin is electable in the general is insane. Her negatives are through the roof. She's the definition of love her/hate her, and the vast majority of people hate her with a passion.

    You want to unify the Democratic-Independent base? Nominate Sarah Palin. You'll get everyone scared shitless about President Palin knocking on doors in no time.

  • @BK – So, do you do all those wonderful grassroots political acts as a part of your lobbying job or in your spare time?

    It's a bit hard to take you and your righteous indignation seriously when you're paid to help candidates you "believe in" and engage in policy discussions. The vast majority of us have jobs that, either implicitly or explicitly, expect us to keep our political views and policy preferences to ourselves. While I would love to devote all my time to fixing the political landscape, I have other work to do. And frankly, I would rather spend my free time doing things that don't frustrate me and get my blood boiling.

    So before you start criticizing Ed (who through is blog is more politically active than 90% of us), maybe you should consider the constraints most non-lobbyists have when making decisions about our political participation.

  • @ Bubba Dean:

    Oh I did see that column, over at Balloon Juice I think. It was so offensive. I did click through and start to read it but I couldn't get past the first graf, about how Jesus "was unemployed but never took unemployment." I mean fuck how ignorant is that? He certainly took handouts.

    How many times do we have to see conservatives find their politics at odds with their religion and conclude that the religion is what's wrong? Assholes.

  • @Scott – thanks for making my point. I willingly took a job working or an organization that doesn't stop me from speaking up for what is right. By the way, I'm not paid to help candidates I believe in, I'm paid to make the ones who aren't on board with my organizations agenda get on it. Your understanding of how government works is probably a bit oversimplified and clearly overly cynical.

    Before you go assuming I'm criticizing Ed you would be well served to reread my post. I'm not criticizing him, I'm criticizing the rest of us who sit idly by or engage in political disucssions only amongst like minded people and whine about how shitty the rest of the world is.

    What's more Scott, I don't question your motives, nor Ed's. Why is it appropriate for you to question mine – you don't know anything about me, the organization I work for or how I do my job.

  • I think that Scott meant exactly what you said: you are paid to have discussions with people to convince them that your policies are the right ones. Most of the rest of us however, are not. I think what this is about is your statement that while you spend your days getting people on board, we are being lazy or idle by not doing the same. I work full time and I'm telling you that the last thing I want to do when I get home at 5 or 6pm is go back out and attend/organize a rally of some kind or argue with my mother in law over the phone concerning immigration policies in this country.

    You have the luxury of being able to do this for a living, that is having policy discussions to bring people on board. However there are regular, everyday people that don't want to be brought on board, they can't be bought, and dealing with them is kind of like beating your head against a brick wall. I doubt that you deal with these people (i.e. poor, rural, Glenn Beck-ites) in your line of work, but if you do and are successful then kudos.

    My point is simply this: Don't tell me I'm being lazy about being politically active when you get paid to be. You asked what we're going to do about this problem. You need to realize that for the majority of us that are struggling to work and live a life, there isn't much we can do because what time is spent not working is spent getting ready to work again or spending pleasant time with people, not having policy discussions. I'd like to keep my mother in law in my good graces rather than convince her that she is a racist and that maybe she should understand the fourth amendment of the constitution better.

    There is no solution to this problem that can be affected by the common man. Therein lies the frustration among the intelligent people. We see the problem and we cannot solve it.

  • @BK – It doesn't take much to go from high minded criticism to internet troll, does it? Yes, clearly my understanding of how government works is clearly oversimplified and cynical because I don't devote my off-hours to fixing the system. Again, I ask you, when and where are you having these policy discussions? If you're having them during your WORK hours, then it's your job and you're paid to do it. If you're having them during your FREE time, then I really want to hang out with you, because you seem like a really awesome dude.

    Isn't a lobbyist calling someone's views about government cynical a bit ironic? No one convinces anyone in government to do something through high minded rhetoric; government is all about quid pro quo. President Obama gave in on the tax cuts to get START passed and DADT repealed. It's not a matter of good or bad; it's just the nature of politics and government.

    Lobbyists, no matter how righteous they think their cause is, are a reason why people have become so cynical about politics in the first place. A single individual can't have their voice heard because a single lobbyist represents thousands of like minded individuals.

    I guess the problem I have with what you're saying can be summarized like this: 1) some guy starts complaining that people don't participate enough politically, beyond staying informed of the issues. 2) When asked what people should do, he spouts off a list of pie-in-the-sky solutions that don't actually do anything in the real world. 3) When called out on this, he reveals that he does those things for a living and wonders why everyone else doesn't also do those things, too.

    I guess if we were all lobbyists, the world would be a much better place.

  • And by the way Scott, i don't measure my selfworth by how well my colleagues like me (by the way, they do) or by how well I do at parties (for what it's worth, I find people worth talking to aren't interested in reality tv shows or the weather).

    So please, take you self loathing and sophomoric insights and apply them to someone else.

  • Scott – you've criticized my ideas. What are yours. Once again, you have demonstrated no idea what a lobbyist for a nonprofit health care organization does. There is no quid pro quo. You think sick Medicaid patients are writing out campaign checks?

    I have conversations about politics an policy with lots of folks. The thing is I can do it without making someone feel like I'm arguing with them or beating them over their head. Or by telling them they are an idiot.

    My point is this – if we all want the progressive, liberal agenda to advance we'd be well served by realizing making fun of palin et al isn't working and it's turning off not only independents, but our base as well.

  • Yes, your colleagues like you, women love you and men want to be you.

    While I agree with you that the weather and reality TV make for boring discussion at a party, so does passionate discussion about political policy.

    I will take my self loathing and sophomoric insights to the real world, where intelligent people can gnash their teeth and rend their clothes because there is very little they can do to remedy the obvious problems in our political system. I'll leave you to your phone banks and door knocking for candidates you "believe in," which totally and completely get the job done.

  • We do all need to be lobbyists for what we believe in. But being a lobbyist is a lot more than writing campaign checks. That makes for an easy argument when the other team wins – it's all those big money libruls/teabaggers who kept us from winning.

    I understand not everyone can be a paid advocate. That doesn't mean the ones who do get paid are all bad.

  • @ BK

    I scored a relatively minor but (to me at least) surprising victory today.
    Somehow this elderly Republican I used to deal with at work had put me on his e-mailing list. After weeks of just ignoring them he finally sent me one asking me to encourage Sen. Johnny Isakson to vote "no" on the START II treaty.
    I waited overnight to see if my rage cooled; it only burned hotter this morning so I sent a reply.
    I told him that anyone who voted against the treaty is a "fucking insane moron of an ass of a douchebag."
    Then I provided statements from every living secretary of state, national security advisor, current and former military big-wigs — all of whom support the treaty and say it is vital for our security, for the verification it provides and the moral authority it gives us in dealing with nuclear proliferation.
    I feared he would be turned off by my expletive-filled intro and stop reading.
    However, about five hours later I received his reply: "Can I tell people you convinced me to support the START treaty?"

  • Fifth Dentist says:

    @ Jen

    "W" was the exception that proves the rule.
    Oh, and I meant to put in my post that, IMO, the Republicans' best shot in 2012 is to run Jeb. (Who himself was the chosen son passed over in favor of the dolt of the family).
    While we're on the subject of the Bush progeny, let's not forget Neal, who was shocked — shocked I tell you — that those strange women that came to his room and had sex with him were not just really friendly foreigners.

    @ Screamin' Demon

    Personally I'm leaning more toward an English teaching gig in Asia. If it comes to that.

  • Arslan Amirkhan says:

    The only thing Obama has going for him is the fear-mongering of a Palin presidency. Fuck him. That's right. Fuck Barack Obama, and fuck everyone who was too stupid to know from the beginning that he was a capitalist-funded fraud. Let's have a Palin presidency. Let them run the damn country straight into the ground like a flaming Heinkel 111.

    As another poster noted, the Beckites and Tea Partiers are not swayed by reason. What will sway them is starvation and total inability to get quality healthcare. If it doesn't sway them, it will kill them. That's why we need to let them have power- let them kill themselves like a lab rat hitting the bar and receiving dose after dose of cocaine. Let them thin their own herds, starting with the fat fucks in medicare-bought electric carts.

    When they are on the street and get a taste of the real world, maybe one day they will actually start to question the wisdom of getting one's political/historical/economic education from a DJ.

Comments are closed.