Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

The party of Reagan has become the party of Putin.

75% of people clapping liked the show!

To the privileged, equality seems like oppression.

White supremacy is terrorism.

Let’s delete this post and never speak of this again.

Do we throw up our hands or do we roll up our sleeves? (hint, door #2)

Sadly, there is no cure for stupid.

You are either for trump or for democracy. Pick one.

The world has changed, and neither one recognizes it.

The poor and middle-class pay taxes, the rich pay accountants, the wealthy pay politicians.

If America since Jan 2025 hasn’t broken your heart, you haven’t loved her enough.

Giving in to doom is how we fail to fight for ourselves & one another.

It’s possible to be a liberal firebrand without crapping on the party.

The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.

“What are Republicans afraid of?” Everything.

Seems like a complicated subject, have you tried yelling at it?

Authoritarian republicans are opposed to freedom for the rest of us.

With all due respect and assumptions of good faith, please fuck off into the sun.

Stay strong, because they are weak.

DeSantis transforming Florida into 1930s Germany with gators and theme parks.

Peak wingnut was a lie.

Bad people in a position to do bad things will do bad things because they are bad people. End of story.

The desire to stay informed is directly at odds with the need to not be constantly enraged.

Impressively dumb. Congratulations.

You are here: Home / Archives for 2009

Archives for 2009

Break Out the Smelling Salts

by | 63 Comments

This post is in: 

I really do not understand this attitude:

It is an odd, and we’d say regrettable, pattern of this White House that it lets itself get dragged down into fights with specific media outlets.

George W. Bush experienced acrimony with the New York Times, but for the most part, other than general frustrations of a conservative administration, complaining about a liberal media, it was no big deal.

But in addition to Fox News, now The White House is going after highly-respected and influential car site Edmunds.com.

They’re actually using The White House blog to dispute the site’s analysis of Cash-For-Clunkers (via Detroit News).

How. Dare. They! They are disputing an analysis! Don’t they know they’re supposed to just sit there and let their critics say whatever they want! The White House is supposed to be “above it all” and is never supposed to correct or address their critics! For shame!

Don’t they know they are supposed to just sit there and let people babble about death panels and how tax cuts make you go to heaven and that the real problem with Wall Street was too much regulation and that cigarettes cure cancer and so forth. How dare the White House have a position on issues?

Break Out the Smelling SaltsPost + Comments (63)

Not Enough

by | 63 Comments

This post is in: ,

I think I’m going to side with Sheila Bair on this one:

WASHINGTON — Senior regulators and some lawmakers clashed once again with the Obama administration on Thursday, finding fault with central elements of the White House’s latest plan to unwind large financial companies when their troubles imperil the financial system.

Describing the details of the legislation to the House Financial Services Committee, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner emphasized that the plan would give officials the tools to more tightly supervise the largest financial companies. The government would also have the authority to order companies to shed risky assets or limit trading activities if they posed a threat to the companies’ stability.

But after he completed his testimony, significant parts of the plan were challenged by Sheila C. Bair, chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. She raised numerous objections about the structure of a proposed council of regulators, and said that it would fall short of its goal of protecting the system from the shock of a large failure.

“The oversight council described in the proposal currently lacks sufficient authority to effectively address systemic risks,” Ms. Bair said.

I really have no faith in Geithner at all, and that may be unfair, but right now all I see are half measures that really are not going to put in place a strict regime of tight regulation. Instead, it seems like we’re just setting ourselves up for another disaster and another round of hoocoodanode.

And why have there not been mass arrests at the ratings agencies yet?

Not EnoughPost + Comments (63)

Early Morning Open Thread

by | 67 Comments

This post is in: 

Happy Halloween!

Just finished the latest additions to the Lexicon, section I – P. I think we need more quotes being mean to Liberals. Also, I didn’t include Lucky Duckies, or John Stewart’s brilliant Leave It There (We’re Gonna Have to… ), or McNaughton, It’s A … the first because I’m not sure it’s necessary, and the latter two because I don’t have good links for them. Any assistance or opinions greatly appreciated.

Early Morning Open ThreadPost + Comments (67)

Fair Questions

by | 258 Comments

This post is in: ,

Two questions/statements that get tossed around whenever I vent about one of these hot button issues were in a thread from yesterday, and I think they are worth talking about. The first:

OK, don’t have time to read all 289 comments but just wanted to ask why John is so obsessed with what gay people think of Obama? I mean, seriously, lately every third or fourth post is knocking some gay blogger or gays in general for being critical of Obama.

The second:

This post is representative of a weird mindset. As someone who was on the BushCo train, and only ditched out on them when it was obvious to everyone with a brain that they were failing us miserably, it seems that some who then in turn embraced Obama want to apply that kind of hero-worshiping that they did with Bush to Obama. That’s not how any of this stuff (stuff meaning how citizens observe and interact with presidential politics) was ever supposed to work.

I’ll answer them together because I think they are related. In response to the second statement, I think it is a very valid question/assertion to wonder if I am just shilling for Obama the way I did for Bush. I do at times seem to have an odd authoritarian streak, and I was completely and totally uncritical of Bush until I finally couldn’t take it anymore, so I think it is fair to think maybe I am just resorting to type.

The thing is, I don’t think I am just in the tank and think Obama can do no wrong. And this is where the first question/comment comes into play. If I’m obsessed with anything, I’m obsessed with people saying what I think are crazy and irrational and stupid things and then making fun of them. It just seems recently, a lot of that stuff has been coming from gay bloggers over gay rights issues. I also think that there is a certain mindset among some people that if you are not spending every day dramatically freaking out that Obama sucks, you aren’t doing your duty as a citizen and aren’t thinking critically and are “just in the bag” for the President. There honestly seems to be a group of people out there who think that when the President tells them to “make him do something,” they don’t understand that he wants them to apply constructive pressure on him and on Congress, they think it is a license to scream and flail and yell “just words” and adopt Republican messaging frames. They think it is permission to have a hissy fit. And I don’t think it is being “in the bag” for Obama to point out those hissy fits.

Where I have made mistakes on this issue is assuming or seeming to assume that I think certain bloggers speak for all gay people. I’ve also been flippant and given the appearance that I just think all gay people are just whiny drama queens. And, something I thought about while watching Milk the other night was that this has been going on for a long, long time, and I might not truly understand the anger and frustration of a lot of people in the gay community.

Lemme give you some examples. I have no problem with people being mad that Obama has not issued a statement about the marriage equality issue in the state of Maine. I think he could and should do more, and won’t say a peep about people flaming the WH for not doing more.

On the other hand, I think you are an insane crazy person if you flip out like Steve Clemons because Obama’s HRC speech was not up fast enough on the White House web site on a Saturday night. I think you have lost your shit when you insist that the WH house release a list identifying all the gay people who came to a ceremony (maybe the WH can also demand they wear pink triangles on their jackets!). I think you have lost your ability to reason if you spend an entire day hyperventilating because the President did not use the word “gay” at a ceremony for hate crimes legislation that covers EVERYONE. I think you have serious issues if you point to an unsourced anonymous quote from John Harwood and then boldly announce to the world that the WH hates gays. And I don’t think I’m obsessed with gays to point at these things and laugh. And I don’t think it is wrong to note that a good bit of this anger is based on the turf war between certain online gay bloggers and the HRC.

Likewise- you will never see me attack Marci Wheeler or Glenn Greenwald for their accurate chronicling of the administrations backpedaling on certain civil liberties issues, because I think they document their arguments and are right. Hell, as much as I love having flame wars with Armando, I think he is more right than wrong on many of these issues.

I will, on the other hand, mock you repeatedly if you tell the world that Obama is worse than Bush because Gitmo is not closed yet and because he hasn’t completely altered the overall outlook of the national security machinery. I will mock you endlessly if you scream that Obama sucks because Gitmo still has prisoners, when the Senate has repeatedly screwed Obama. Hell- remember the 96 to nothing vote a couple months ago about “freeing terrorists on domestic soil.”

I’m not going to say a peep to folks who argue the administration has not done enough to reign in the banksters or the credit ratings agencies or the insurance boys. I think it is ridiculous we have not started a new regulatory regime by now. I’m kind of shocked we have not broken up the boys who are “too big to fail” and have sat by while they taking bigger and bigger risks and leverage themselves more than they were before they almost killed the country. I think the Goldman Sachs presence in our government is to the point that it is blatantly criminal.

But I am going to mock you if you tell me Obama is the worst president ever because of daily fluctuations in the DOW or the value of a dollar. I am going to give you a rhetorical punch to the neck if you bitch that Obama has not “turned the economy around” when just a few months ago we were on the verge of global armageddon. I am going to point and laugh if you kvetch about the deficit and the national debt when it would still be disastrously out of control from the previous administration if Obama had spent not one penny.

In short, I don’t think I’m in the tank for Obama, I think I’m just applying common sense. Maybe I am too sarcastic and snide, and we all know I can be a real jerk, especially to people I like. And if you disagree with me, or think I am wrong, well, you get to go ahead and call me an asshole in the comments and tell me why I am wrong. Try it. You might find it very liberating, and I know that when enough of you start to point out I am wrong about something, I probably am. I’m hard-headed, but I am capable of learning.

Fair QuestionsPost + Comments (258)

I’m Just Applying Your Standard

by | 177 Comments

This post is in: ,

Sully:

John Cole is upset. The bill does add gender identity to the roster of victims, and I should have noted that as well. But the inference that if you oppose the logic behind this bill, you support violence or discrimination against transgender people is repulsive. Here’s Cole’s moronic gibe:

    What does it say that Sullivan only seems to give a shit about the gays. What about the lesbians? What about transexuals? Why do you hate them, Andrew?

Of course I don’t. What conceivable evidence do you have for saying so?

Andrew, I’m just applying your standard. You’re the one who spent the last 36 hours complaining that Obama really doesn’t care about gay rights because he didn’t use the word “gay” at the signing ceremony. Using your standard, what are we supposed to do but assume you do not care about lesbians and transgendered since you failed to mention them all day in your rants.

Additionally, Andrew completely ignores the points brought up by the commenters here about why Obama’s language was appropriate at the ceremonies. Andrew likewise ignores all of the comments from those of you who chimed in about why this was a good and necessary bill and why it should be supported. At least he has now acknowledged that the bill he claimed does nothing actually does something new. That is progress, I guess.

I’m Just Applying Your StandardPost + Comments (177)