Archive for October 22nd, 2009

Helpful Advice For Republicans

If you don’t want Americans to think you’re obnoxious, crazy extremists, then don’t, y’know, be obnoxious, crazy extremists.

October 22nd, 2009 at 09:11pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Politics,Republicans,Wankers

Republican Humor

The funniest thing about Republican comedy is that they’re at their most hilarious when they’re not trying to be.

Intentional (from the RNC’s own blog, no less):

With an ever-increasing number of Czar appointments by President Obama, it has become clear that no position is too absurd. In an effort to assist in adding another cumbersome bureaucratic layer to government and to help properly ensure the basic human right of friendship to all Americans, a new Friendship Fairness Czar has recently been appointed.

Tasked with the daunting responsibility of making sure that every  Facebook user is equal, this new Czar will help redistribute the wealth of friendship from those who are too popular to those who are poor in friends.


Details of how the position of Friendship Fairness Czar works are superfluous. The Czar may or may not have been properly vetted.  The most important thing is that disparity in the number of Facebook friendships is ended.

Czars are unaccountable and socialist!  We know what Facebook is!


Lamar Alexander explaining that the Obama White House is much tougher than the Nixon White House.

Jonah Goldberg “dreading the anti Liz Cheney onslaught” because “She’s so plainly good people.”

If they just stop trying altogether they’ll look like comedic geniuses.

1 comment October 22nd, 2009 at 07:57pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Republicans

I Guess Robert Gibbs Doesn’t Watch Fox News Either

(Another one I wanted to hit yesterday…)

After Eric Boehlert’s great takedown of Ruth Marcus’s defense of Fox as a news organization rather than a propaganda arm of the Republican Party, it was disappointing to see WH spokesman Robert Gibbs offer up such a lame defense of Obama’s Fox News boycott:

Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –


Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say –

Gibbs: ABC –

Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.

Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” — why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That’s our opinion.

O’Reilly and Beck?  That’s it?  That’s all you’ve got?  By not attacking the news part of Fox News, Gibbs allows them to perpetuate the myth that they’re a straight objective news organization that just happens to have some right-wing commentators.  Better flacks, please.

October 22nd, 2009 at 11:47am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Democrats,Media,Obama,Politics

The Weakest Of Reids

(I really wanted to hit this yesterday, but I spent all night wrestling with a new router that turned out to be defective)

Finally, a poll that asks the right question:

Among all Nevadans, 52 percent described him as a weak leader, and only 24 percent said strong. Even among Democrats, 47 percent said weak and 39 percent said strong. Ouch. That’s going to leave a mark.

More than half — 54 percent — of all those surveyed also said Reid is “ineffective” in the Senate, while 23 percent said he was “effective.” Even among Democrats, a soul-crushing 51 percent said ineffective, and only 39 percent said effective.

Asked if Reid should be the Democratic nominee for Senate in 2010 or if it is time for someone new to represent the party, a minority of Democrats — 38 percent — agreed that the majority leader of the Untied States Senate should be their party’s nominee. Only 13 percent said it is time for someone new, but 49 percent weren’t sure.

Among Nevadans with an unfavorable view of Reid, 47 percent think Reid is “too far to the left” while 41 percent think he’s “not progressive enough.” Among Democrats who view him unfavorably, a whopping 92 percent think he’s not progressive enough, and only 6 percent said he is too far to the left.

“The numbers say it all,” said PCCC’s Adam Green. “If Harry Reid starts acting like a strong leader and passes the public option, he solidifies his standing with Democrats and Independents and has a chance to survive 2010. If he continues to be weak — refusing to unify the Democratic Caucus behind an up-or-down vote and allowing the public option to be watered down to nothing — Democratic senators will likely be looking for a new Majority Leader in 2011.”

Reid weak? Really?  Wherever did anyone get that idea?  Well, aside from all the time Reid has done the Republicans’ bidding (remember telecom immunity?) and all the times he has made no effort to whip his caucus, consider some of these recent data points:

o Reid not only allows members of his caucus to threaten to join a Republican filibuster of the public option, but he won’t even reveal who they are.

o Funny how the White House is so heavily involved in the legislative process and dealmaking in the Senate, but not the House.  Could it be that Pelosi told them to butt out, and Reid didn’t?

o Which is probably why Pelosi opted to bring the most progressive healthcare bill to the floor, and Reid’s still hemming and hawing and consulting with the White House.

This poll truly is a wonderful thing.  Finally, we have some data to push back against the dishonest conventional wisdom that Democrats lose support because they’re too liberal, when the reality is that they usually lose support for being wimps or corporate sellouts (no one could have anticipated…), and the corollary that they only win elections by being mealy-mouthed centrists (see: Rahm Emanuel, 2006 Congressional Landslide Orchestrated  Solely By The Genius Of).

Now can we please get pollsters to start adding “why” questions whenever they ask people for approve/disapprove or who they’ll vote for?  More Democrats will either start to realize that being strong liberals actually improves their job security, or else fully expose themselves as corrupt corporate whores who don’t care what their constituents think.  At the very least, they would no longer be able to hide behind the false conventional wisdom that corporatism masquerading as moderation is what America wants.

October 22nd, 2009 at 07:15am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Democrats,Healthcare,Obama,Politics,Polls

Contact Eli



Most Recent Posts




October 2009
« Sep   Nov »

Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter

View My Stats *