Subscribe via RSS Feed

Today In Delicious Attempts By Republicans To Rationalize Losses

[ 65 ] November 5, 2012 |

Shorter Colonel Mustard: Liberals are such strange people. We came up with a trivial pseudo-scandal about someone they strongly support on principle, and…they still support her! I can’t explain it. Liberals are so weird I bet they’d support Warren if we could prove that she at one point was un-American enough to use a condiment other than ketchup or Cheez Whiz.

Share with Sociable

Comments (65)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Reading the comments at that article, it is clear that the site is an echo chamber whining about stupid low information Democratic voters and the Evil Mass Media. In other words, a self-referential navel-gazing collection of blinkered twits.

    • Davis says:

      I should avoid reading the comments at such sites (t’s not good for my health), but here’s a gem:

      In Nevada, Harry Reid, got re-elected by painting Sharon Angle as a crazy woman. Harry Reid had 15 percent popularity….but…. people don’t vote for the “crazy woman”……Hoping that’s the case in Mass…..

    • bradP says:

      Reading the comments at that article, it is clear that the site is an echo chamber whining about stupid low information Democratic voters and the Evil Mass Media.

      Who would want to comment in an echo chamber dedicated to the stupidity of the other side and the media.

      Who?!

      • witless chum says:

        Well, we at least know who the low-information voters actually are, Brad. People who aren’t strong partisans of one side or the other tend to know least because they don’t really follow politics outside of the presidential cycle. Even with all the bullshit the Colonel’s commenters believe, they at least know who Elizabeth Warren is and sorta what her politics are,

  2. sherparick says:

    It must be like having root canal every day without anasthesia be a student of this idiot at Cornell.

    Rick Perstein has a great article on why lies and lying are a “feature,” not a bug of the Conservative Movement. (The end where he quotes M. Stanton Evans about how he had never liked Nixon until Watergate is priceless.)http://www.thebaffler.com/past/the_long_con/print

  3. david mizner says:

    I really hope she wins. Because if she doesn’t…A well-funded populist famous for standing up to the banks loses — in Massachusetts. Never mind that Brown is a strong candidate that disassociated himself from the national party, or that the liberalism of the state is sometimes overstated, or that he would’ve beaten a standard issue corporate Dem,
    if she loses, the corporate wing of the Democratic Party will claim victory, and Democratic candidates all over will tighten their embrace of Wall Street.

    • Malaclypse says:

      Silver’s giving her a 93% chance of winning.

      In 28 years of voting, Warren will be the first time I’ve ever actually voted for someone, rather than simply voting against the Republican. I’m finding the idea kind of strange…

      • DrDick says:

        It has only happened to me a couple of times in my 40 years of voting and those were in the 70s.

        • bradP says:

          And not an ounce of cynicism about the wonders of government!

          That’s dedication to the cause!

          • Cody says:

            Are you an anarchist?

          • Malaclypse says:

            And not an ounce of cynicism about the wonders of government!

            That’s me – not cynical at all. Whereas the guy who thinks the bestest government possible is one closely modeled on the Shire is a hard-nosed realist.

            • bradP says:

              Whereas the guy who thinks the bestest government possible is one closely modeled on the Shire is a hard-nosed realist.

              Maybe after I have spent 2/3rds of my life voting to minimize the harm of government, I will lose my idealism and buy into the wonders of a big progressive government.

              Seems like a reasonable conclusion.

              • Malaclypse says:

                Well, that’s pretty much exactly the path I took after watching the same purity arguments I was making convince just enough Floridians to not vote against the only person who could defeat the worst US President since Jefferson Davis, so at least you will be in good company.

                • Pestilence says:

                  whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? since when is Jefferson Traitor Davis getting included as US President?

                • Malaclypse says:

                  Well, if he doesn’t count, that means W scrapes the bottom of the list. I was trying to be generous.

              • John says:

                The difference between liberals and libertarians is not that liberals are blind to the potential for abuse of power by the state. It’s that libertarians are blind to the equally great potential for abuse of power by wealthy private interests, and liberals recognize government as the only counter-force to mitigate such abuses, even if it doesn’t function perfectly.

                • bradP says:

                  The difference between liberals and libertarians is not that liberals are blind to the potential for abuse of power by the state.

                  Note that my issue is more with progressives than liberals. With that said, I might be inclined to believe you if the democratic checks and administrative choices we are presented with weren’t betrayed as a joke.

                  For example, I’m sure the PPACA is going to work out great with our seesawing between evil administrations and marginally less evil administrations.

                  I am absolutely sure that our health care system will be ran by corporate whores in the pockets of healthcare industry lobbyists. How anybody thinks the system would not end up regressive and exploitative is beyond me.

                • DrDick says:

                  +∞

                • witless chum says:

                  The PPACA will probably work out about as well as the Missouri Compromise (I tip my hat to Mal above calling George W. the worst since Davis.) given that it’s a compromise between people trying to keep the current system functioning and the people who are the problem with the current system and don’t seem afraid of just wrecking it. But we certainly don’t lose anything over the current state of affairs, at least from my non-libertarian perspective. And we accomplish putting the healthcare system into the category of something you blame congress for when it doesn’t work.

                • bradP says:

                  But we certainly don’t lose anything over the current state of affairs, at least from my non-libertarian perspective.

                  I will admit that there is virtually nothing to defend in the current state of affairs.

          • DrDick says:

            You obviously have no reading comprehension. On the other hand your undying adulation of the beneficence of the private power of capital is truly touching.

      • MAJeff says:

        That’s what it felt like to vote for Paul Wellstone in MN.

      • Roger Ailes says:

        But what does the heterosexual statistical analysis say?

      • david mizner says:

        If it feel too strange, you can remind yourself that Warren has taken some conservative stances on foreign policy.

        Don’t get me wrong I like Warren, I hope she runs for president in 2016 (Stop Hillary!), but an across-the-board lefty she ain’t, at least not at this point.

        • Malaclypse says:

          If it feel too strange, you can remind yourself that Warren has taken some conservative stances on foreign policy.

          What Charlie Pierce said:

          There is only one vote that I am casting with any measurable amount of enthusiasm. That is the vote I am casting for Elizabeth Warren to be my next United States senator. This enthusiasm is based not solely in my personal affection for her, nor solely in my admiration for the things she’s already accomplished, nor solely as a reaction against the unnecessarily crude and boorish campaign waged against her by incumbent Senator Scott Brown, nor solely even in the fact that I think this race is still agonizingly close and that I think Warren has it in her to be a great United States senator on behalf of many of the issues that I think are important to the country. The enthusiasm derives from the fact that, when she was asked in a debate what her policy would be toward our groaning (and increasingly futile) military adventure in Afghanistan, she answered quickly and simply. Out. Now.

    • Don’t worry, david. She’ll win and you’ll be calling her a sellout who hates brown people by this time next year.

  4. Sterling says:

    Nothing irritates a bespectacled middle-aged white guy than a woman who claims affinity with minorities. Strangely, that’s far more offensive to the BMAWG sensibility than finding out a bank has systematically defrauded clients or customers, which apparently is a feature, not a bug, of the American political/economic system.

  5. rea says:

    un-American enough to use a condiment other than ketchup or Cheez Whiz.

    Like mustard?

  6. RJB says:

    Can someone explain to me why Scott calls him Colonel Mustard? Is it the color of his website, or something to do with a candlestick and the parlor?

  7. R. Porrofatto says:

    On a lighter note, speaking of Col. Mustard, the NY Times aims for the microcephalic demographic with stuff like this.

  8. Shorter Col. Mustard: But..but…but…flogging white resentment always works!

    No fair!

  9. NorthLeft12 says:

    I really do not understand the American obsession with race/racial heritage. For a society that is supposed to be a melting pot, I would have thought it would not matter to anyone. Sometimes I think it is all you folks down there discuss.

    By the way Scott, please don’t link to the Colonel’s web site again. I started feeling dumber the second I clicked on the link. I had to push the “ON” button to get away from it.

  10. The Dark Avenger says:

    For a society that is supposed to be a melting pot, I would have thought it would not matter to anyone. Sometimes I think it is all you folks down there discuss.

    The past is never dead. It’s not even past.

    William Faulkner Requiem for a Nun

    He was talking about the South, but it can be applied to the racial problem in America as well.

  11. Woodrowfan says:

    In 1980, 1984 and 1988 I voted for the Democrat because the Republican was so very much worse.

    In 1992 I voted with some enthusiasm.
    In 1996 I voted as a FU to the Repubs.
    In 2000 I voted for the Dem with a lot of enthusiasm.
    In 2004 I voted not with enthusiasm, but thinking the Dem would make a good president.
    In 2008 I voted with enthusiasm again.
    This year I am voting for Obama because he’s done a pretty good job given the roadblocks in his way and because it’s legal, whereas walking around punching teabaggers in the face would get me arrested.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.