I was watching TV

I haven’t watched a bobblehead show in at least three years, but the other night I had access to HBO so I caught Bill Maher. His guests were Tweety, Russ Douthat and one of the interchangable blondes from some GOP front group who go on teevee to parrot the latest con talking points. Never saw Russ live before. Good Lord. He’s infinitely more irritating in person than he is in print. That pudgy little smug grin is so George W. Bush-x11.

But Tweety was hilarious. He was slurring so much, I thought he might be drunk. An impression reinforced by his admission that Michele is his hero. He boldly predicted she’s going to win the GOP nod. His theory is even though she’s batshit crazy, her authenticity will win over the base and she’ll tromp all over Mittens.

Not sure I’d bet money on that. Romney raised $18.25 million in the last quarter while Minnesota’s favorite regressive won’t be releasing her numbers until the last possible moment.

Suppose it’s possible they’re so good she’s releasing them last to get the most juice from the news cycle, but the blitz of fundraising emails I’m finding in my inbox from “Gun Alerts” sound a little desperate. They all lead with the heading, “Finally, a Constitutional Conservative Announces Candidacy for President!”

Funny. I had no idea she was the only one. I thought they were all “constitutional conservatives.”






94 replies
  1. 1
    Howlin Wolfe says:

    Did Douchehat change his first name to Russ? And his last name to Douthat?

  2. 2
    dan says:

    I can’t tell you why, but I have been enjoying Chris Matthews more and more lately. He may be a bit off, but I think he is more genuine than other pundits. And his laff cracks me up.

  3. 3
    Han's Solo says:

    Was that the episode where the Obama impersonator, the one the GOP cut off in mid-act, came on to finish his act? Because that was funny!

    On Mitt Romney, “Mitt Romney is what people who hate white people think about white people.”

  4. 4
    Rhoda says:

    I’m with Tweety on this one; through I don’t know if Michelle is going to make it. I think Pawlenty might rally to pull this one out. But whatever the case, she’s got a 3 to 1shot right now. That’s a pretty good chance at the nomination. And if Pawlenty flames out in Iowa; she’s even money to pull this off.

    I can see her pulling this off.

  5. 5
    cat48 says:

    Tweety just thinks more females should be in Politics so he gets excited when they become involved. Of course, he still wants the prez to win I would assume. I think the Villagers may be “faking it” when it comes to Bachmann so they don’t come off as “the lamestream liberal media” since their handling of Palin was harshly criticized by some as unfair. I’m not sure it was. She made a lot of blunders right away.

  6. 6
    Han's Solo says:

    @dan: I watch Matthews because there is a man who really LOVES his job.

    Sometimes he says really stupid things, I’ll grant you that, but boy does he love talking politics.

    As to his love of Bachman, I think he is doing this because he (sort of) gave her her start as a half-wit wingnut extremist when she came on his show and urged a return to McCarthyism. Also too, I think he wants Bachman to win because she would be good for his ratings. Of course, that is what several pundits were saying about Dubya Bush in 2000.

  7. 7
    Rhoda says:

    @cat48: She has made a lot of blunders; but this is a party that managed to elect I am not a witch lady in Delaware. I think it’s an open question how cuckoo the GOP is right now.

  8. 8
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @Rhoda: FWIW, Nick Silver has Bachmann at 15-2 odds against, or a 12 percent chance of winning nomination.

    Couple weeks old, but nothing major has changed.

  9. 9
    J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford says:

    I thought his name was Ross duTwat.

  10. 10
    cat48 says:

    @Han’s Solo & dan

    I love Tweety. I watch him every night. I think he’s better than anyone else on msnbc. I always know what I’m going to get with him. He’s became more Liberal as his kids have grown up, too, which makes him more likable to me.

  11. 11
    zhak says:

    Don’t count the crazy lady out. Here in NH I’ve begun seeing campaign signs for Bachmann already stuck in lawns.

    It’s incredibly depressing.

    Thing about Bachmann is, she theoretically represents the people of her district, right? And they are one of the hardest hit spots for underwater mortgages & the like. So any REPRESENTATIVE of that district should be bending over backwards trying to help her people. & she consistently votes against their needs. She’d only do the same thing as president: put the (unworking & inchoate) ideology of her political party ahead of the needs of Americans.

  12. 12
    murbella says:

    The whole Romney candidacy smacks of greek tragedy…the guy is a mormon. The American electorate will vote for a Scientologist for president before they will vote in a mormon.
    Romney’s hamartia(tragic flaw) is his mormonism.

    “[Tragedy] deals with the pain and suffering caused when an individual, obstinately defying the dictates of divine will or temporal authority, or refusing to yield to destiny and circumstance, instead obeys some inner compulsion that leads to agonizing revelation....”

    A mormon simply cannot be elected president in contemporary America.

  13. 13
    rickstersherpa says:

    The cable “news” channels, MSBNC, CNN, and even Fox Noise, all have a significant interest (they make more money) if there is a hotly contested primary race in the Republican Party. Hence, I take the Mittens bashing with a large grain of salt (not that it is not occasionally fun to watch), since they all want keep attracting eye balls by at least pretending it will be a competitive race (hence the current siren calls to Rick Perry, truly the greatest moral cretin in the United States (not to many Governors have let an innocent man be executed for political reasons, but Perry can make that claim) to get in the race. I hate to be so cynical about this, but all the cable news shows, even beloved MSNBC, are basically reality entertainment channels now, not “news” (see “Anthony, Casey, Trial of” and the around the clock coverage, meanwhile 10 American soliders are killed in Iraq and Afghanistan over the weekend and perhaps got one sentence at the top of the hour.”) As for Chris Matthews, I don’t know what he really believes or think, but I suspect it is true that, since he is in some sense as the creator of Michelle Bachman as a national figure, he has a rooting interest in seeing her get the nomination.

  14. 14
    a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q) says:

    It all just gives me a headache.

  15. 15
    cat48 says:

    @rhoda

    Oh, I’d say “full blown cuckoo” since Boehner had to sneak a secret meeting with Obama at the WH Sun. nite for the Debt deal, per WashPo. Then yesterday, he was screaming at the WH that there would be no tax revenue, etc. They seem afraid to treat the prez like an actual human being which makes me sad. You know, when the teatards are watching, they can’t be nice to him.

  16. 16
    Han's Solo says:

    @cat48: Has he become more liberal?

    I think it was Bill Maher, on the same episode of Real Time that this entry is about, who discussed with Tweety whether they’d become more liberal or the GOP had gone bonkers and driven their party so far to the right that it only seems Tweety and Maher had gotten more liberal. I could be wrong about that, but I know Tweety made that point somewhere.

  17. 17
    Davis X. Machina says:

    Jonathan Bernstein on Bachmann’s chances.

    Tim Pawlenty, Rick Perry, and Mitt Romney are all doing their best to keep any space from opening up to their right on most issues. So for most party actors, electability and trust are going to be the important criteria, and it’s hard to see Bachmann doing well on that.

    You’ll need to read more of his stuff to see where his interest in the role of party actors, as opposed to primary voters, in the process comes from. On a similar theme, Hans Noel on the invisible primary.

  18. 18
    Bill H. says:

    I watch Tweety regularly, and I enjoy him. He’s a bit of an idiot, but I enjoy his enthusiasm, which I think is entirely genuine.

    He loves Bachmann because he believes he “created” her, or “launched” her on his show. It was on Hardball that she said Obama “has unAmerican tendencies” and the an investigation should be launched into all of Congress to see which members of Congress had unAmerican tendencies. Tweety believes that was her moment of ascendency to stratospheric Republican notoriety, and that he engineered it.

    His fawning over his “guests” does get a little old. “You are the best at this stuff. I watch your show every day, I read everything you write and I just admire you tremendously. You are so good at this stuff, and I’m so flattered to have you on my show.” Jeez.

  19. 19
    gbear says:

    zhak@11:

    So any REPRESENTATIVE of that district should be bending over backwards trying to help her people.

    Bachmann wouldn’t recognize the sixth district if she passed it walking down the sidewalk. She’s been horrible at constituent service and has lately been talking up how proud she is of her Iowa roots. If she doesn’t get the nod to run for president, she may have burned her bridges too badly to get re-elected in her district.

  20. 20
    Han's Solo says:

    OT, but Sullivan has a reader comment up that sounds like something I’d write (but it wasn’t me this time, I swear.)

    So, as I just heard Chris Mathews incorrectly put it on his TV show, the question is not whether “Republicans are willing to default on the U.S. debt because of intransigence on taxes?” No. Republicans are threatening a disastrous debt default to extract long held goals to gut Social Security, Medicare, the EPA, the SEC, etc. This is “starve the beast” on suicidal steroids.

    The above is not revelatory information, nor does it require a “conspiracy” mindset. These are long held, openly acknowledged political goals of the Republican Party. Ronald Reagan made his early name in part by advocating against Medicare. George W. Bush tried to privatize Social Security. Paul Ryan’s budget would end Medicare and replace it with a voucher system. A debt default – in Republican eyes – would be “useful” only as a way to push funds away from these programs in the context of a crisis. In the last Republican debate, Michelle Bachmann said that her “jobs program” would be to get rid of the “job killing EPA.” Mitt Romney suggested that it would be good if we privatized FEMA.

    Indeed, the lunacy of framing this debt ceiling standoff as being about Republican “intransigence on taxes” is demonstrated by the fact that no meaningful proposal to raise taxes is even on the table for Republicans to oppose. So, David Brooks is left to scratch his head in puzzlement about the Republican approach, but only because he pretends that this stand-off is really about taxes and not the Republican’s long stated goal to gut social programs and regulatory agencies.

    Republicans ability to frame the media debate around their tactics, rather than their goals, has been doubly effective. Not only has it obscured what is really being fought over, but the average person who is not a political junkie just hears that Republicans are really hard-assed about keeping taxes low. That sounds reasonable, no?

  21. 21
    stuckinred says:

    He loved the fucking Swift Boat Vets For Truth too. Fuck him.

  22. 22
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @ 16 Han’s Solo – July 6, 2011
    I saw Tweety say, can’t remember where, that he’s become more liberal, and Maher said a couple years ago that he’s given up on the idea of bipartisanship. I like Maher– he gets off enough to-the-bone shots at Republicans to make me forgive his occasionally adolescent smugness– but I sometimes have a hard time watching his show because of his stated policy of stacking his panel with conservatives to make up for his own and his audience’s bent. It would bother me less if those conservatives were capable of anything but, as Libby said, parroting the talking points du jour.

    And I still think, if you asked him, Tweety would repeat what he said a few years ago, that Dianne Feinstein is his model of what a Democrat should be. I think that speaks volumes about Tweety and the Beltway he loves more than his children. Also, too, he freakin’ pinched Hillary Clinton’s cheek. She shoulda hauled off and decked him.

  23. 23
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    The problem with Maher’s preference for conservative guests is that quite a bit of stuff flies right past Maher without being addressed. This lets the wingnuts get their ‘word’ out as if it’s legitimate.

    I like Tweety but he can get shrill at times. That and as mentioned above, his penchant for ball-washing many of his guests can get sickening, one recent ball-washee being the chick that had gastritis so bad that it broke her calculator. It was like watching a drunk praising a garbage can.

  24. 24
    Culture of Truth says:

    The thing about Tweety is he’s just a little bit crazy. Ok, a lot. He’s just a little excited about Bachmann, but Romney is still the odds-on favorite. I regularly watch Maher’s show, but when I saw Douthat would be on, I bailed.

    Regarding starving the beast:
    the only government sponsored online product safety database is near its end. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) online database, SaferProducts.gov, just launched in March, but the House Appropriations Committee approved a spending bill late last month eliminating funding for its online database.

    Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) introduced legislation prohibiting funds to implement the database. The bill passed in the House 234 to 187.

    “The challenge isn’t the concept of the database,” he said. “The challenge is that the implementation is terrible and it will spend lots of taxpayer money at a time we won’t have it. But without the benefit we all wish we could have, safer toys. Everyone wants children to be safe.”

  25. 25
    cat48 says:

    @Hans Solo

    Has he become more liberal?

    Tweety’s definitely more liberal b/c he used to be for Civil Unions only, but his kids are for Same Sex Marriage so now he is too! Also, abortion has always bothered him; but he’s eased up a lot on that too. His children are educating him. :)

  26. 26
    cleek says:

    The American electorate will vote for a Scientologist for president before they will vote in a mormon.

    latest Gallup poll on the matter says that 76% of people would vote for a Mormon President.

  27. 27
    Xenos says:

    ‘Constitutional Conservative’ is code for ‘alternate history reactionary’. When this is combined with a law degree from a 7th tier law school based on fundamentalism and white supremacy, you get some really new, innovative ideas being generated and promoted.

  28. 28
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @cleek: They’ll vote — half of them anyways — for Kang or Kodos if it gets the Kenyan Socia1ist Muslim usurper out of the White House.

  29. 29
    JGabriel says:

    Libby @ Top:

    Never saw Ross [Douthat] live before. Good Lord. He’s infinitely more irritating in person than he is in print.

    That’s unpossible.

    Isn’t it?

    .

  30. 30
    Han's Solo says:

    @cat48: You may be right, but I’m not sure one’s position on civil unions vs gay marriage is the best metric for measuring how liberal a person is. Gay marriage may be the one issue in this country where the goal posts have been moved to the left, not the right.

    Or, put another way, being open to gay marriage these days isn’t a liberal position so much as a mainstream position. At least, that is the direction the country as a whole is moving. We aren’t there yet, but with a little luck we soon will be.

  31. 31
    Jim C. says:

    I wonder how long it is until Douthat realizes he’s an affirmative action hire so that the New York Times can meet its quota of conservatives as mandated by the “Vast Leftwing Conspiracy Society” Charter Law and that he doesn’t have any actual talent, ability or brains?

    I wonder if his smirk will change at all once that happens? (If it ever does.)

    In any event, here’s hoping that Bachmann manages to get the election. Batshit crazy she may be, but in a general election that can only be a good thing.

  32. 32
    JGabriel says:

    cleek:

    latest Gallup poll on the matter says that 76% of people would vote for a Mormon President.

    Yes, but most of the other 24% is the non-Mormon, Christian fundamentalist, GOP base.

    .

  33. 33
    Chris says:

    @ cleek –

    latest Gallup poll on the matter says that 76% of people would vote for a Mormon President.

    I agree that people are overrating the anti-Mormon prejudice as a factor, especially given that the same people who don’t like Mormons have an even greater hate towards Kenyan Islamo-Soshulists.

    Still, if you scroll down, that same poll has 94% of Americans saying they would vote for a black man. And if you believe that, I’ll tell you another. Just because X amount of people won’t own up to a prejudice in the year 2011 doesn’t mean they don’t have it. So I’d take that 76 number with a grain of salt as well.

  34. 34
    bkny says:

    tweety’s not a liberal; he’s an opportunist — a well-established washington dc way of doing things. he’s voted republican for years — and came very late to the revelation that idiot son was despised by the majority of americans. his latest iteration has more to do with the first black president than any strong feelings about policy. notice there’s never a real discussion about policy on his program; it’s all who’s bestest today and has the depth of dinner party yammering. which is basically what his program is — a continuation of last nite’s cocktail party chat.

  35. 35
    Tom Q says:

    My take on next year’s GOP presidential primary is, no one really knows what’s going to happen, because we can’t be sure the most recent history is comparable. Romney, by virtue of having the most money, leading the polls and having at least a tenuous hold on the “next in line” position, will be the choice if the party follows the patterns that brought Bush I, Dole and Bush II.

    Two things make me wonder if that old formula is applicable for 2012 (and maybe beyond):

    First: though there were superficial smilarities, the way McCain won the nod in 2008 was different — and more tenuous — than the way Dole and Bush II had. In those earlier cases, an insurgent’s early victory (Buchanan ’96, McCain ’00) pushed the party regulars to rally behind the originally favored candidate, who then won going away. McCain got no such coalescing in ’08. His victory was a purely tactical one — winning alot of winner-take-all, delegate-rich primaries against a split right-wing field, but failing to gin up much party enthusiasm in the process (even the day he clinched the nomination, he lost about as many primaries as he won). Should Romney falter early, I’m not sure he can count on the infrastucture being in place to bail him out.

    Second, and related: none of us knows if the Senate/gubernatorial results of ’10 were specific to the low-turnout universe in which they took place, or a harbinger of a new normal in GOP nominating prcoedure. In way too many of especially the later primaries, the party choice — the choice of those focused on electability — went down in favor of a fringe candidate. A few of those won in November regardless, thanks to local demographics, but no one doubts O’Donnell, Miller, Angle, Buck et al. cost the GOP an even bigger victory last year. I think anyone who says that can’t happen in the presidential primaries next year — who thinks rational choosing will return triumphantly to pick a mid-range, unthreatening nominee — is assuming facts not currently in evidence. Not to say they may not be right; simply to say we can’t be sure of that until the contest is underway.

    And if the crazy of ’10 shows its face again in ’12, the unthinkable Bachman is suddenly a real candidate. Keep in mind: Democrats used to largely follow party leader direction at one point too…then they got sick of it one year and chose McGovern (a fine man, my first vote, but in votres’ minds aman off on the fringe, and eventually an all-time loser). I see no reason to think the GOP in its current incarnation is not capable of that same walk off the cliff.

  36. 36
    Trollenschlongen says:

    Amazing that anyone with half a brain or a shred of self respect would watch Chris Matthews on ANY show.

    A complete sell out, talent-free media whore and drunk half the time to boot.

    His presence on Real Time reminds me why I stopped watching that show a few years back. Maher grants a platform to as many war criminals and hacks as almost any one outside of Fox.

    The final tell: Maher’s complete banning of any discussion of 9/11 that doesn’t embrace the ridiculous official government version of events. I’m guessing he made a deal with the devil to get back on the air after Politically Incorrect got spiked.

  37. 37
    Chris says:

    @ Xenos,

    ‘Constitutional Conservative’ is code for ‘alternate history reactionary’. When this is combined with a law degree from a 7th tier law school based on fundamentalism and white supremacy, you get some really new, innovative ideas being generated and promoted.

    Well said.

    People have observed that in politics, people, especially authoritarian psychos, have a tendency to be the opposite of what their name implies – hence “Democratic People’s Republic” = “totalitarian one-man dictatorship.” Similarly, in America, people who harp on the words “freedom,” “Christian” and “Constitution” have very little in common with any of these labels.

    Also, I’ve noticed in Christianity that people who say “we’re non-denominational, we’re just trying to get back to the pure way Jesus did things” are doing nothing of the sort – they’re just another denomination, which can’t be bothered to come up with a coherent doctrine and gloss over it by claiming “oh, it’s just pure Jesusness.” The same’s true in politics, of people who claim constitutional originalism, or following the Founding Fathers.

  38. 38
    J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford says:

    Trollenschlongen – July 6, 2011 | 10:51 am · Link

    The final tell: Maher’s complete banning of any discussion of 9/11 that doesn’t embrace the ridiculous official government version of events. I’m guessing he made a deal with the devil to get back on the air after Politically Incorrect got spiked.

    9/11 Truthers suck and you’re a schmuck.

  39. 39
    JGabriel says:

    Rhoda:

    I can see [Bachmann] pulling this off.

    I suspect that, if Bachmann begins to look like she can get the nomination, then Palin will join the race just to spoil Michele’s chances.

    Think about it for a moment. You’re Sarah Palin, and you want to be president in 2016, when the economy is better and the job will be easier. (Bear with me. We’re thinking like Sarah! here).

    If a woman gets the GOP nomination in 2012, and loses, you can bet they won’t give it to another woman in 2016. And if she wins, then (as Sarah) you can’t be president in 2016 without challenging an incumbent.

    Either way, you need for Michele Bachmann to not get the 2012 nomination, in order to preserve your chances for 2016.

    So, if Michele begins to look like a real contender for the presidential nomination — instead of looking like someone who just wants to be VP — then Sarah! will jump in to prevent it.

    .

  40. 40
    murbella says:

    @cleek

    latest Gallup poll on the matter says that 76% of people would vote for a Mormon President.

    the problem is that the 22% that would NEVER vote for a mormon are WECs in the conservative base. the evangelical vote makes up at least 50% of the conservative base.

    @Davis

    They’ll vote—half of them anyways—for Kang or Kodos if it gets the Kenyan Socia1ist Muslim usurper out of the White House.

    IFF Mormon Guy can demonstrate that he can beat Obama.
    so far that isnt happening.

    Perhaps most significantly for Romney, the poll found that in a trial heat against Obama, the former businessman runs close, losing 47% to 41%. It is the best showing by a Republican candidate in the poll; Pawlenty loses by 12 percentage points and Palin by 17.

    If half the conservative base won’t vote for a mormon, the GOP can’t win the WH. its not possible.

  41. 41
    Xenos says:

    This sort of faked conservatism is a holdover of the 20th century understanding of authenticity. Here, reactionaries consider themselves the true, most authentic Americans, so by reverse incorporation what they believe is necessarily how the original founders, those most authentic Americans, believed.

    Actual history is suspect because the historians themselves are inauthentic and rely on tools and evidence that are assumed to be as dishonest as the reactionaries’ own tools and evidence. How can fake Americans come up with a more legitimate history than authentic Americans? For someone whose entire world-view is based on appeals to authority, that just does not make sense.

  42. 42
    Superking says:

    I saw Douthat outside my house one day. I just opened the door and walked out, and he shot me a startled look like his adrenaline just started pumping and he was ready to run. I don’t suppose it’ll shock anyone to know that he seems to be a scared little boy like all the other conservatives out there. He is skinnier than his NYT pic makes him look, though.

  43. 43

    @JGabriel:

    That’s unpossible.

    Sure it’s possible, as long as you understand transfinite numbers.

  44. 44
    eemom says:

    omg Timlet — you’re a TRUTHER too?

    Now I’ve heard everything.

    as for Tweety-bird, his only selling point is his capacity to occasionally turn his belligerent assholery on someone who’s an even bigger asshole than he is.

  45. 45
    cleek says:

    @murbella:
    @JGabriel:

    actually, the group with the highest “no” reaction to a Mormon candidate are Democrats. they beat Republicans by 9 points, in that category (27 to 18 %)

    the only group that does worse on that question are those with no college education (31%)

  46. 46
    Trollenschlongen says:

    @ eemom:

    omg Timlet—you’re a TRUTHER too?

    eemom (please note my reversion to using your actual moniker as a nod to your kind comments regarding my artwork), can you share with me your definition of a “truther,” please? I mean, other than as a buzz word to shut up anyone who finds obvious flaws in the official story and wonders about the quarter-ass effort to provide answers.

    And no, I don’t believe the planes were holograms or piloted by space aliens, but hey, GWB was soon thereafter hailed as a Churchillian genius and heroic leader, and I’ve no doubt that if there ARE extraterrestrials the Bush family is in league with them, so stranger things have happened…

  47. 47
    Trollenschlongen says:

    @ rusty something or other:

    9/11 Truthers suck and you’re a schmuck.

    Please share with me your definition of a “truther.” Thanks.

  48. 48
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    I always say Romney’s mormonism will become an issue because of his flip-flopping on choice and gay rights. The twin and contradictory unorthodoxies will become fused into one, I think. I don’t know if that would be enough to derail his candidacy, but if Perry gets in, I think Mitt could be in big trouble.

    IIANM, the only non-Utah, Mormon pols above congressional level are Dems: Harry Reid and Tom Udall (Mark has apparently left the church). I may be missing another Senator or a governor.

  49. 49
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    People have observed that in politics, people, especially authoritarian psychos, have a tendency to be the opposite of what their name implies – hence “Democratic People’s Republic” = “totalitarian one-man dictatorship.”

    Funny you should mention that. In my regular face-to-face discussion group we have what we call the “DPR (Democractic People’s Republic)” principle, which is that whenever you encounter positive sounding adjectives embedded in a formal name (e.g. “Honest John’s Used Cars”) somebody in sales and marketing is lying to you about the qualities in question.

    The application of this principle to the name “The United States of America” is left as an exercise for the reader.

  50. 50
    Mike in NC says:

    I thought they were all “constitutional conservatives.”

    Maybe you were thinking “constipated conservatives”?

  51. 51

    No, I’m pretty sure “Constitutional Conservative” means treating the Constitution like the bible. Which is to say, it is immutable, authoritative, and our interpretation is always the correct Founding Fathers’ approved interpretation, SCOTUS decisions and case law be damned.

    Thus, the first amendment means the government can mandate prayer as long as we let you heathen pray silently to your gods or you atheist heathen to sulk silently while you mock us in your head and dream of pagan currency without the word God on it.

    Also, you godless, traitorous journalists have the right to print only what doesn’t embarrass the government, otherwise expect a long arduous investigation.

    You can also assemble to protest or petition for grievances, but only in specially designated free speech zones several miles away from the event you wish to protest and surrounded by heavily armed police.

    The second amendment means every Real American is entitled to own military grade ordinance and must carry it at all times. Teachers should be packing a RPG launcher. Airline passengers are required to keep the extra clips for their AK-47’s in their carryon bags, unless they don’t feel like it.

    Fourth Amendment? If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear.

    Fifth? Technicality that only the guilty use. You have a right to remain silent, and we have a right to send you through enhanced interrogation whenever we damn well please.

    Eighth? You know, if we do it often enough, it’s no longer unusual, and cruel is really a pretty vague term.

    Ninth: We’ll tell you what extra rights you have. Privacy is not one of them, pinko.

    Tenth: The Fed gub can’t do anything more than bomb shit we don’t like. Anything else is unconstitutional.

    Fourteenth: You’re a citizen if you’re born here… unless you’re parents were Mexican, then screw you. Also, sure, States have to treat everyone equally, but that doesn’t mean the Feds can pass any laws forcing the States to do so, or act against states that don’t feel like doing that.

    Fifteenth: Doesn’t say nothing ‘bout not requiring reading tests, IDs, economic status, or party affiliation, so suck it Demoncrats.

    Sixteenth: It was passed “illegally”, so it don’t count. Wolverines!

    Seventeenth: Things would be really great in this country if we could just get rid of all of this democracy.

    Twenty-second: If it weren’t for this godless liberal piece of crap, we’d been able to elect Reagan to this day. What? Republicans passed this one? Oh, well, thank God they saved us from the tyranny of FDR and his ability to cling to power through winning a lot of elections.

    Twenty-sixth: Doesn’t say we can’t require college students to cast ballots in person in their home town districts, even if they go to school 4,000 miles away. If it weren’t for those damn liberal godless math and economics teachers, our kids would know that cutting taxes means more money for the government.

  52. 52
    cleek says:

    @ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
    there’s also a corollary for band names: a band with “soul” in it’s name will have none in its music.

  53. 53
    Nemesis says:

    The gop is not ready to place a woman atop the ticket. No way.

  54. 54
    jheartney says:

    Fifth? Technicality that only the guilty use. You have a right to remain silent, and we have a right to send you through enhanced interrogation whenever we damn well please.

    Unless the accused is one of ours, in which case suck on it libs if you think you can get him to talk.

  55. 55
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    @cleek:

    a band with “soul” in it’s name will have none in its music.

    Sort of like how it smells wonderful outside of a Burger King but the burgers always taste like cardboard, because all the flavor goes up the chimney.

  56. 56
    murbella says:

    @cleek its still mathematically impossible. conservatives need ALL their base plus some portion of independents to win the WH.
    And that is a sentiment poll. Like Chris pointed out it is uncorrected for people saying they will vote for a mormon for social capital when they actually won’t.
    Do you think the evangelicals that put a full page add in the times saying they would secede from the GOP if Sick Grampaw took Mitt as his VP have mellowed over the past four years?
    They have gotten crazier like the rest of the wingnuts.

  57. 57
    cleek says:

    @murbella:

    it is uncorrected for people saying they will vote for a mormon for social capital when they actually won’t.

    and vice versa.

    its still mathematically impossible. conservatives need ALL their base plus some portion of independents to win the WH.

    nope. all they need is more votes than the Dem gets. and if the Dem base is bummed, that might be a lower number than it was in 08.

    Do you think the evangelicals that put a full page add in the times saying they would secede from the GOP if Sick Grampaw took Mitt as his VP have mellowed over the past four years?

    a lot of things have changed in the past four years. GOP anger with Obama might be more salient than intra-party issues.

  58. 58
    Chris says:

    @ cleek,

    a lot of things have changed in the past four years. GOP anger with Obama might be more salient than intra-party issues.

    This. The GOP’s ability to win elections, for the last forty years, has been predicated on the (usually correct) notion that the disparate parts of their coalition hated the liberals and their constituencies more than each other, and enough to march to the polls and stick it to them.

    So far, it’s worked. That’s what the absolutely ridiculous, over-the-top attacks on everything from birth certificates to Muslim identity to death panels to, well, everything, are about. The hate’s what powers their machine, they need every last bit of it they can get. We’ll see how that works in 2012.

  59. 59
    Brachiator says:

    Not sure I’d bet money on that. Romney raised $18.25 million in the last quarter while Minnesota’s favorite regressive won’t be releasing her numbers until the last possible moment.

    Let’s take a quick stroll down the street of Presidential Campaigns Past:

    In the January 3, 2008, Iowa Republican caucuses, the first contest of the primary season, Romney received 25 percent of the vote and placed second to the vastly outspent Huckabee, who received 34 percent. Of the 60 percent of caucus-goers who were evangelical Christians, Huckabee was supported by about half of them while Romney by only a fifth….
    __
    Trailing McCain in delegates by a more than two-to-one margin, Romney announced the end of his campaign on February 7 during a speech before the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. Romney spent $110 million during the campaign, including $45 million of his own money.

    And yet the media yammers on about how Romney is the front runner and the choice of “sane Republicans.”

    Romney is about as inevitable as Hillary Clinton and Rudy 911 were back in 2008. And he is already sputtering and stumbling and coming across as the most inauthentic man in America.

    I’m still betting money that the GOP will turn to Jeb Bush to save them from the Tea Party People and any attempt by Sarah Palin to play power broker.

  60. 60
    Rhoda says:

    @Davis X. Machina: I was just going by the top tier IMO (Romney, Pawlenty, Bachmann) and not the whole field. I think these three are the real players in Iowa and by extension New Hampshire and South Carolina; through Santorumm might surprise us. I don’t think so; but you never know.

  61. 61
    Catsy says:

    @Trollenschweiner:

    The final tell: Maher’s complete banning of any discussion of 9/11 that doesn’t embrace the ridiculous official government version of events.

    Ah. And pray tell, which part of the “government version” of 9/11 do you find “ridiculous”? The part where an airplane actually did crash into the Pentagon? The part where these airplanes were actually piloted by terrorists rather than CIA or Mossad agents? The part where the crashes, and not mysterious demolition charges, were responsible for bringing down the WTC?

    Or are you one of those people who thinks there was a conspiracy within the Bush Administration to let 9/11 happen, or that they were even involved in it?

    I’m trying to figure out just how far down the truther rabbit hole you’ve fallen, so that I know the appropriate level of mockery to employ. Because what you wrote above is “the final tell” that gives sane people of all political stripes free license to publicly humiliate you for the gullible, tinfoil-clad idiot you are.

  62. 62
    eemom says:

    @Tim

    I would say that a “truther” is simply someone who believes that there was a U.S. government based conspiracy behind 9/11.

    I’ll grant you that for Cheney and his loathsome ilk, it did indeed amount to a miracle beyond their wildest dreams. But demons can get lucky, just like anybody else.

  63. 63
    Trollenschlongen says:

    @ the simplemindedkittycat:

    I’m trying to figure out just how far down the truther rabbit hole you’ve fallen, so that I know the appropriate level of mockery to employ. Because what you wrote above is “the final tell” that gives sane people of all political stripes free license to publicly humiliate you for the gullible, tinfoil-clad idiot you are.

    Man…just fuck you, first of all. You are obviously more of an embicile than I thought.

    Overall, I have no problem accepting ALL of the official government story, if they would just provide credible evidence to corroborate the many parts of that story that stink to high heaven to the non-biased observer.

    No, I don’t believe an entire airliner disappeared into a tiny hole in the side of the Pentagon, and COMPLETELY vaporized. Have you seen photos/video of the tiny hole after the attack but before the above stories collaped? But if the government would release just one of the many security camera tapes it confiscated actually showing a plane and not a tiny little blur, that could go a long way.

    No, I don’t believe an airplane crashed in Pennsylvania and COMPLETELY disappeared into a relatively tiny hole in the ground, again with very little if any debris and NO bodies; not even bone fragments. Unheard of. But again, if convincing evidence is provided, I’ll concede.

    No, I don’t believe that the entire eastern/northeastern air defenses of the united states were unable to get even one fighter jet into position during the nearly two hours after the first plane was reported off course and the “plane” hit the pentagon, WITHOUT, perhaps, there being some REASON why that was allowed to happen. And if it did, why in the world was no one reprimanded, fired, prosecuted?

    Why were all of the tape recordings of interviews with air traffic control personnel DESTROYED immediately following? WTF?

    That’s just the beginning of the list of QUESTIONS. But in your world, Catsy-kitty, questions are a bad thing, because we must not question the official word of the U.S. fucking government, which as we know never lies to anybody.

    Why is it SOOOO important to you to believe the government? And why would you believe the BUSH administration, above all? Why is it NOT OK to ask questions/express doubt? That is exactly what a press and public in a HEALTHY democracy is supposed to do.

    Though born in the U.S. I am of German descent. Ninety per cent of the very smart/educated/historically aware German people do NOT believe the official 9/11 story put out by the U.S. government. I’ll claim my place among them and the rest of the world, which doesn’t buy it either.

    Finally, why is it so important for you to SHUT THE FUCK UP anyone who expresses doubt about this? If you don’t have doubt, you are a fool.

  64. 64
    Trollenschlongen says:

    @eemom:

    I would say that a “truther” is simply someone who believes that there was a U.S. government based conspiracy behind 9/11.

    My position is roughly that I do NOT believe the official government story is accurate. I believe there are huge questions and inconsistencies that have not been sufficiently addressed and explained, and that the government for some reason refuses to do so.

    There are all kinds of conspiracies. Ones that take active measure to cause something to happen, and others that take passive measure to allow something to maybe happen, and others yet that take active measures to conceal the reality.

    Catsy-kay apparently thinks conspiracies do not exist; at least not in the candy cane land of Bush american in 2001.

    It is not my job to come up with a comprehensive/lucid/verifiable narrative; that is the job of the government and they haven’t done it. I choose to remain skeptical; I don’t have to BELIEVE that I know the “truth” to believe that I know bullshit when I hear and see it.

    However it is definitely my belief that the government did and does continue to cover up at least certain aspects of what happened that day. I do not claim to know why; which doesn’t mean I don’t get to speculate.

    Gosh…Bush and Cheney: Who would EVER think they would do anything evil?

  65. 65
    geg6 says:

    The final tell: Maher’s complete banning of any discussion of 9/11 that doesn’t embrace the ridiculous official government version of events. I’m guessing he made a deal with the devil to get back on the air after Politically Incorrect got spiked.

    Anyone who says something like this is too stupid to be taken seriously about anything at all, let alone politics or media criticism.

    As for Bill Maher and why he has no patience for and will not give up his microphone to you Truthers, it might be because he thinks you’re too stupid, too.

  66. 66
    cleek says:

    again with very little if any debris and NO bodies; not even bone fragments.

    this is completely false.

    do some fucking research.

  67. 67
    eemom says:

    @ Tim 65

    It’s not that I don’t think Bush/Cheney would do anything that evil. It’s that I don’t think they would do something as utterly batshit insane as to take a risk of that magnitude, of the, um, “truth” coming out.

    The fanatics who flew those planes expecting be greeted in heaven by 72 virgins? THEY were insane.

  68. 68
    murbella says:

    eemom

    The fanatics who flew those planes expecting be greeted in heaven by 72 virgins? THEY were insane.

    are you sure of that?

  69. 69
    murbella says:

    and vice versa.

    no, social capital payoff doesnt work that way.
    in sentiment polls, people want to be percieved as unbiased, not-racist, and fair.
    that is why you get polling saying 96% of americans would vote for a black man as president.
    but empirically that is untrue.
    you dont get social capitol payoff for pretending to be a bigot. you get social capital payoff for pretending NOT to be a bigot.
    Ditto racism.

    The Bradley effect, less commonly called the Wilder effect,[1][2] is a theory proposed to explain observed discrepancies between voter opinion polls and election outcomes in some United States government elections where a white candidate and a non-white candidate run against each other.[3][4][5] The theory proposes that some voters will tell pollsters they are undecided or likely to vote for a black candidate, while on election day they vote for the white candidate. It was named after Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, an African-American who lost the 1982 California governor’s race despite being ahead in voter polls going into the elections.[6]

  70. 70
    Trollenschlongen says:

    Anyone who says something like this is too stupid to be taken seriously about anything at all, let alone politics or media criticism. As for Bill Maher and why he has no patience for and will not give up his microphone to you Truthers, it might be because he thinks you’re too stupid, too.

    aaaahhh…the old “shut the fuck up, nothing to see hear…” approach. See how you try to shame me with the term “truther,” as though that term encompasses some definable group, from those who claim the planes were holograms (likely ratfuckers) to those like me who see a lot of unanswered and very reasonable questions. Ummm…that doesn’t work on me. You see, my brain functions.

    Sadly, it is you, little lemming, who have no credibility. Anyone who swallows the entire government story as gospel is a tool.

  71. 71
    murbella says:

    @cleek

    a lot of things have changed in the past four years. GOP anger with Obama might be more salient than intra-party issues.

    /shrug
    we will see. the country is only half bubbas and teabaggers, so even a single digit percentage loss will crash their attempt to take the WH. And Mitt is still losing to Obama in the polls by 6%.
    i dont think WECs ever change much. They are fundies.
    Fundies are more inclined to burn the middle ground of moderates to force people into their camp.

  72. 72
    Trollenschlongen says:

    this is completely false. do some fucking research.

    Hmmm…again with the tone? Why the hostility? Does asking questions about 9/11 rattle your little bubble and make you uncomfortable, you poor baby?

    I mentioned body parts and bone fragments. First responders to that alleged crash saw no body parts, no fuselage, no engines, no seats, no nothing, just a little scrape in the ground. Have you see the pics and video from just after the alleged crash, genius?

    Where did the “dna” come from? It doesn’t say in your article.

    Do you believe everything printed in the papers? Do you think the government ever concocts stories? Do you still believe there are WMD in Iraq?

  73. 73
    Ruckus says:

    ThatLeftTurnInABQ

    Sort of like how it smells wonderful outside of a Burger King but the burgers always taste like cardboard, because all the flavor goes up the chimney.

    I always figured that was part of the oven they send the “meat” through but not in any way connected to the actual finished product. A perfume atomizer so to speak.

  74. 74
    cleek says:

    @murbella:

    no, social capital payoff doesnt work that way.
    in sentiment polls, people want to be percieved as unbiased, not-racist, and fair.

    i don’t care about “social capital”. the point was that people misrepresent their views in both directions. ie., actual Mormon Mitt Romney may do better with voters than the hypothetical Mormon did in the poll because he might not be a good fit for whatever prejudices people have about Mormons. or maybe he’ll be worse. either way, we can’t say until the votes are in.

  75. 75
    murbella says:

    the point was that people misrepresent their views in both directions.

    no, they don’t. you are wrong.
    people misrepresent their views for social capital payoff. there is no payoff in pretending to be a bigot or a racist.

  76. 76
    cleek says:

    @Trollenschlongen:

    Hmmm…again with the tone? Why the hostility?

    tiresome, constant-name-changing, insult troll is upset at someone’s tone.

    hey look everybody, it’s irony!

    I mentioned body parts and bone fragments. First responders to that alleged crash saw no body parts,

    what the first responders found is completely irrelevant. subsequent searches turned up body parts of all the people aboard the plane.

  77. 77
    Ruckus says:

    A first responder is looking for LIVE bodies and unstable situations. Find/stabilize/transport the living, put out fires, secure the area. Investigations/fine searches come later.

  78. 78
    Ruckus says:

    Why oh why did I get sucked into this? Can I get out of the vortex of stupidity?

  79. 79
    cleek says:

    @murbella:

    there is no payoff in pretending to be a bigot or a racist.

    again, i do not care about “capital” or “payoff”. that is not what i’m arguing. i don’t care to do remote psychology on anonymous poll respondents.

    when the time comes, people will vote for or against Mitt Romney, not for or against the abstract Mormon from Gallup’s poll. some of those people will have told Gallup they won’t vote for a Mormon but will vote for Romney anyway; some won’t vote for him despite having said they would; etc.. they’ll all have their own reasons, and i doubt many will be based on whatever mind-games they were playing with the pollster, a year prior.

  80. 80
    hunter says:

    Oh, I see — it’s not just that she’s crazy, but she’s authentically crazy.

  81. 81
    Trollenschlongen says:

    A first responder is looking for LIVE bodies and unstable situations. Find/stabilize/transport the living, put out fires, secure the area. Investigations/fine searches come later.

    They found NO bodies, and no parts of bodies, and no seats and no fuselage and no nothing else. There was nothing. Several responders were interviewed and expressed amazement. None had seen anything like this. Where was the crash?

    Have you watched news footage from just after the “crash?” Reporters, talking heads, people on the ground, all going WTF? There’s nothing here except a little smoking rut in the ground?

    Maybe you are right and this can all be explained away, but someone should probably provided evidence. Why does me asking questions freak you out? Why do you think it is stupid to ask questions?

  82. 82
    cleek says:

    but someone should probably provided evidence.

    of what?

  83. 83
    Ruckus says:

    Must… resist… the…

    I think I can, I think I can.

    Walk away boy, just walk away. The only way to remain sane is to walk the hell away.

    Footsteps, softly at first, then running…

  84. 84
    murbella says:

    @cleek

    people will vote for or against Mitt Romney

    watevah. i understand you don’t care about social capital and sentiment polling, but polling is an attempt to model the eventual election, and pollsters DO care.
    And all the WECs there are are in the conservative base, and most of them will not vote for a mormon.
    what I SAID is that the electorate will not elect a mormon.
    and i think that is still true. there is a significant proportion of the electorate that will not vote for a mormon, no matter who it is.

  85. 85
    cleek says:

    @murbella:

    And all the WECs there are are in the conservative base, and most of them will not vote for a mormon.

    the poll says 18% of Republicans will not vote for a Mormon, while 80% would. i don’t see anything there about how those numbers break down among either the conservative base or the evangelicals.

  86. 86

    libby dearest;

    you have to remember, when conservatives say constitutional, they rarely are referring to the document we might be inclined to recall.

    in this case, i believe they are skipping the adjectival all together and heading straight for the noun.

    a walk or mild exercise for one’s health. they are conservatives so that means money, moreso than walking or stretching. yoga is for hippies, and they have fleets of suvs.

  87. 87
    Kilkee says:

    As an ex-Masshole who hates Mittens, I am delighted by the thought that his Mormonism may make it impossible for him to win the GOP nomination. Even though I wasn’t living there when he was Governor, it irritated the hell out of me during the 2008 campaign to listen to him discuss his administration there as if he was some sort of zookeeper placed in charge of the DFH cage. He did nothing but badmouth the people of Massachusetts who had been kind (I guess) enough to elect him. As it happens, outside of Utah, Massachusetts would likely be one of the few states where his religion would be close to a non-issue. Message to Mitt: hey, dope — it’s the liberals who will listen to your business plans without getting all hung up on whether you think there’s a personal planet waiting for you in the afterlife. As or all those God-fearin’ evangelicals? It doesn’t matter what you say, they ain’t buyin’ it.

  88. 88
    stinkdaddy says:

    @ OP: Pretty sure the “my hero” thing was extremely dry humor. Whatever, but what he was saying was that Bachmann would beat Romney in New Hampshire. He went on to list prominent crackpot candidates – Buchanan, etc – who had beaten the eventual nominee in New Hampshire. Maybe I’m misinterpreting the tone here, but you seem to be going overboard trying to show that he was being way nuttier than he was actually.

    @ 73 and similar bullshit:

    You’re a moron. You also seem to be one of these new modern breeds of trolls that doesn’t even understand how to conduct the exercise properly. Get your game straight or piss off.

    (And, anticipating your sadly-deficient response: No, I’m not afraid to “address the issue” or whatever other frame you might choose. Calling someone who is making farty noises with their lips and then yelling about how people won’t debate the substance of their argument a child is not ‘ducking the debate.’ Again, try harder.)

  89. 89
    Trollenschlongen says:

    No, I’m not afraid to “address the issue”

    tee hee. Oh yes, you are. I’m guessing you are afraid of most things in life. People who are confident in their belief system aren’t generally as hostile and defensive as are you.

    Carry on…

  90. 90
    Uncle Clarence Thomas says:

    .
    .
    @90 Trollenschlongen

    Balloonbaggers are the very essence of “Anti-Truthers.” They are not responsive to the presence of facts, evidence, or logic – or to their absence. They belong to a cult of personality, and require a Leader to decide for them what the truth is to be. Once they have found their Leader, all disputes are resolved by a resort to his Authority. Currently, their Leader is President Obama. Read the back issues if you doubt me.
    .
    .

  91. 91
    handy says:

    Mittens won’t lose the nomination because he’s a Mormon. He’ll lose the nomination because he’s a Mormon, AND because party leadership wants him to…and of course because he’s just a really crappy candidate.

  92. 92
    liberal says:

    @64 Trollenschlongen:

    No, I don’t believe that the entire eastern/northeastern air defenses of the united states were unable to get even one fighter jet into position during the nearly two hours after the first plane was reported off course and the “plane” hit the pentagon, WITHOUT, perhaps, there being some REASON why that was allowed to happen. And if it did, why in the world was no one reprimanded, fired, prosecuted?

    [emphasis added]

    LOL!

  93. 93
    liberal says:

    @68 eemom:

    It’s not that I don’t think Bush/Cheney would do anything that evil. It’s that I don’t think they would do something as utterly batshit insane as to take a risk of that magnitude, of the, um, “truth” coming out.

    Yeah, even Bush would cower at the thought of being hanged.

  94. 94
    Lawnguylander says:

    “You are obviously more of an embicile than I thought” is the new “get a brain, morans!”

    “Though born in the U.S. I am of German descent” is the new, well I don’t know, but the original must’ve been nasty.

Comments are closed.