Dependable Erection

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Draft Sanford!

Via TPM: Draft Sanford 2012.

Classy unauthorized use of the Beatles, too. Visit now while there's still time.

Labels:

posted by Barry at 2:27 PM Digg this

18 Comments:

  • OK. That was gross.
    Thanks, I think.

    No, wait just a fucking minute.

    HOW DO people who purport to "love" The Beatles so not get it? Not understand The Beatles' unconditional message of not love, but simple acceptance of humanity? How many times do I have to hear Republicans appropriate "Taxman" as their one-size-fits-all answer to taxation for government services.

    You know, if you don't fucking want to live in a civilized society where the weak are cared for, where the environment is protected, where the public is protected from insider exploitation, where weasels do not roam free, then sure, vote fucking "Republican" every chance you get. Because what have those assholes gotten you, ever?

    Just sayin'.

    PS: So-called "Libertarians" are Republican who like to smoke dope. And they do a piss poor job of that, don't they? If any "real" "Libertarians" can demonstrate how to pursue their one passion, which is "I don't want to spend money on taxes, I want to spend money on pot," they could win an election or two, I bet.

    By Blogger Tony, at 9:57 PM  

  • Hmmm.... I seem to recall something or other about Mark Sanford in the news, lately, but that website's news section hasn't been updated since June 9th.

    You'd think that a "grassroots" website, so keen on gaining support to convince Gov. Sanford to run for national office would have the latest news about him.

    Oh, well, whatever it was that was in the news about him recently, it must not have been that important, for the webmaster to leave it out of the updates.

    /s

    By Blogger Dan S., at 2:13 PM  

  • "You know, if you don't fucking want to live in a civilized society where the weak are cared for, where the environment is protected, where the public is protected from insider exploitation, where weasels do not roam free, then sure, vote fucking "Republican" every chance you get."

    LOL, Tony, if Democrats have the answers to all these things, why are they not doing them/did them already? They control the presidency and both houses of Congress. LOL.

    "PS: So-called "Libertarians" are Republican who like to smoke dope."

    @ Tony: This is also giving me a laugh. I have never smoked dope, but I know plenty of both Republicans and Democrats who do. And I believe Obama himself famously partook when he was younger, as did Bill Clinton. It's not a bad thing, anyway.

    By Blogger midnightsun, at 5:44 PM  

  • Because there are still too many Democratic politicians who think like Republicans.

    But we're working on that.

    By Blogger Barry, at 5:49 PM  

  • Well then maybe it's not the problem of the Republicans, but of the Democrats? The last Republican presidency expanded Medicare and expanded government spending.
    Aren't those pretty much Democratic proposals? How does a Democrat think, anyway?

    I'm looking at Pelosi with her majority in Congress and I don't see any change in gay rights, more lands under government control, or any other "progressive" policies. Instead I see a war bill that was signed with no timeline or date for getting out of Iraq, and I see bailouts for billionaires and nothing for the common guy hard at work.

    By Blogger midnightsun, at 5:59 PM  

  • Republican politicians consistently do nothing about anything, except make sure their crony friends get some goodies.

    Democrats spend too much time accommodating Republicans, in politicking, policy and law-making.

    Call this supposed "give and take" (but mostly "take and take" or "give and give") the "compromise" process of a democracy, but it kinda pisses me off that midnight wants to have it both ways.

    One, when Republicans are in power--and don't kid me, they have been--they rule as Republicans, which is to not to. But somehow, magically, spending goes up while taxes do not. Any guess what that leads to? Don't get caught in a hurricane or national disaster when a Republican is in the White House.

    Then, when Democrats achieve a majority, they rule as Republicans Lite, which I think is what Barry refers to. Meanwhile, during periods of Republican Lite (of which Obama has mad skills in) the fratboy atmosphere of political discourse drops down even further to spitballs, name-calling and obstructionism. Oooh, that Sotomajor is soooo evil, right? Give me a break and grow the hell up.

    The "political discourse" of course, falls to midnight's brilliant assertation, why do Dems fail? I can tell you why. They're too busy kissing your Republican ass, that's why.

    The so-called mainstream media, in a bizarre game of "getting both viewpoints" (now how does that work? I say I believe in the laws of gravity. So CNN is obligated to give equal time to a complete daft moron who does not believe in gravity), CNN airs complete dribble from "conservatives" who don't even do a good enough job of studying what true conservatism is. It's not throwing spitballs. It's not a freaking knee-jerk reaction to every idea from the other side. Bill Buckley must be spinning in his grave.

    Hence, I have no use for the Grand Old Pity and its legacy of what? Plain hatred? Amped up class warfare against every one below the entrenched elite? We all have our favorite reasons for despising Republicans, some Republicans do, too. Banksters on Wall Street took a handful of bad mortgages and managed to, I dunno, just totally fuck the entire capitalism system for private gain. Tell me, what's "conservative" about that? Except that Bush declawed as many federal agencies as he could during his 8 years.

    Here's how it goes. Don't like socialism? Then don't mess up capitalism so bad that it looks like there is no other option.

    What does it tell you that Americans of all stripes were so pissed off at the Republican Brand, that they voted in a 40-something African-American Democrat from Chicago? Can the Republican Party not learn a damn thing? If you told me that could ever happen in my lifetime I would say you were smoking crack. It's like saying both Lou Reed and Keith Richards would outlive Michael Jackson.

    So snark away midnight. It's what Republicans do best. Who's gonna win in '12, by the way? I hear great things about some guy named Sanford.


    (today's Word Verification is "leded" - coincidence? I think not.)

    By Blogger Tony, at 1:31 PM  

  • No difference?

    By Blogger Barry, at 1:38 PM  

  • Man, Tony...as someone who usually self-identifies as a (lower-case) libertarian, I really don't mind being called a dope smoker. But being lumped in with the theocratic proto-fascists that are the modern GOP...that's insulting...for precisely the reasons you have articulated so well...

    By Blogger Brian, at 5:09 PM  

  • I think for me, the litmus test is going to be whether or not Libertarians actively disavow Michelle Bachmann's particular brand of fruitcakiness vis-a-vis the 2010 census.

    By Blogger Barry, at 5:35 PM  

  • Maybe it was the ales or post-Obama hubris on my part to lump Libertarians with Republicans.

    Libertarians have enjoyed the luxury of not actually winning any elections (as far as I know) to provide us some "real world" example(s) of how they would govern or at least oversee governance.

    I apologize. With a small caveat. There is a "libertarian wing" of the GOP. Think those guys are ever going to make a difference? Does anyone know if there is a "libertarian wing" among Democrats? If there is, I haven't noticed.

    I'm just very angry that Bush and his pals kicked the can down the road, so many problems we couldn't even conceive of in 2000. Members of the GOP have acted irresponsibly, knowing someone else will have to try to clean up the mess, while at the same time throwing spitballs in the process.

    Suddenly, in today's Herald-Sun, both George Will and our NC's very own John Hood have articulated why ANY healthcare solutions are wrong. (Of course these guys are also against government creating paved roads...)

    I disagree, of course, but it's the first time in perhaps years that conservatives have finally gone back to what they do best. Remind us to be careful what you wish for, there may be unintended consequences. Their arguments are much better than the usual scare tactics and name-calling we've become so accustomed to.

    To support my other contentions re: the GOP brand, check out this brilliant example of politicking:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/item/boehner-climate-bill-a-pile-of-sht/blowhards/

    By Blogger Tony, at 12:15 PM  

  • Tony--no need to apologize, I was mostly making a joke.

    Actually, I'm thankful that Sanford has crashed and burned, since no small number of libertarians (particularly the reason magazine crowd--whom I generally tend to agree with, though they too easily get sucked into partisan politics for my taste) have been salivating over his putative run for the presidency, and I couldn't for the life of me see why.

    So he said no thanks to some federal $$? Big deal. Wake me up when a Republican comes out anti-war on principle (there is no bigger government program after all), is a fiscal conservative, AND is confident enough in the strength of those positions that he/she doesn't feel the need to pander to the anti-anything that isn't white middle class suburban straight Christian America crowd.

    By Blogger Brian, at 5:48 PM  

  • "Republican politicians consistently do nothing about anything, except make sure their crony friends get some goodies."

    Uh, sorry to break it to you Tony, but this applies to both sides of the aisle. Off the top of my head, I can think of William Jefferson, John Edwards paying his mistress with campaign funds, and Charles Rangel sending taxpayer-funded kickbacks to the companies that donated money to the school named after him in NYC.

    As for spending with no accompanying tax increases, that is a problem with both parties and it's kind of understandable (though lamentable) when you look at the American public, which likes spending but doesn't like tax increases!

    "why do Dems fail? I can tell you why. They're too busy kissing your Republican ass, that's why."

    Haha, nice one. Neither the Congressional Republicans nor Democrats offer anything for this gal.

    "CNN airs complete dribble from "conservatives" who don't even do a good enough job of studying what true conservatism is."

    Now I can agree with you.

    "legacy of what? Plain hatred? Amped up class warfare against every one below the entrenched elite? We all have our favorite reasons for despising Republicans, some Republicans do, too. Banksters on Wall Street took a handful of bad mortgages and managed to, I dunno, just totally fuck the entire capitalism system for private gain. Tell me, what's "conservative" about that? Except that Bush declawed as many federal agencies as he could during his 8 years."

    Both parties are complicit in bailing out billionaires. And the deregulation which many think caused it started under Clinton, not Bush. Oh yeah and that war in Iraq? Bush may have started it but all the Democrats just voted for a war bill with NO TIMELINE or conditions. So much for getting us out of there, huh? I thought Democrats were "anti-war."

    The cap and trade bill is a corporate handout, as has been seen in Europe where it has simply enriched the biggest-polluting companies. Who in the world could be in favor of everyone filling out their 28-page census forms when most people would be better served filling out job applications? The census WAS used by our own government to find Japanese-Americans for internment, as well as the Nazis to find the Jews. The Constitution does not grant the government to know whether you have ever been depressed, etc. Bachmann is an idiot but gets this one right.

    "Does anyone know if there is a "libertarian wing" among Democrats? If there is, I haven't noticed."

    There are left libertarians, yes.

    Brian: "Wake me up when a Republican comes out anti-war on principle (there is no bigger government program after all), is a fiscal conservative, AND is confident enough in the strength of those positions that he/she doesn't feel the need to pander to the anti-anything that isn't white middle class suburban straight Christian America crowd."

    I'm shaking you awake, because his name is Ron Paul. Along with a few others like Dennis Kucinich, he is one of the few principled members of Congress, not bought and sold by anyone.

    By Blogger midnightsun, at 9:54 PM  

  • You had me going there for a second.

    By Blogger Barry, at 10:00 PM  

  • If that article is true, why does it not mention that head of the Austin NAACP (Ron Paul represents Austin) said he was not a racist and defended him?

    Guilty of lack of oversight of a newsletter, yes. Racist, no.

    By Blogger midnightsun, at 10:03 PM  

  • 20 years of publishing a newsletter under your name doesn't constitute a "lack of oversight" my friend.

    But hey, some of his best friends are black, so he couldn't possibly attempt to appeal to racists.

    By Blogger Barry, at 10:07 PM  

  • It was not 20 years.

    As far as I know, the NAACP has been quick to call it when they see any hint of racism.

    By Blogger midnightsun, at 6:11 AM  

  • re: Ron Paul. Been there. Done that. Fool me once, etc...

    But what really pissed me off about Paul was that he spent all his money in New Hampshire (including the $20 I gave him) on ads not attacking Bush foreign policy, not advocating the principles that he had been more or less the lone spokesman for in congress all those years, but rather, blaming all of our problems on immigration. (In other words, playing to the worst elements of the Republican base, as per my comments above.)

    By Blogger Brian, at 12:47 PM  

  • You're fine for holding your opinions for whatever reason, Brian. I don't agree with you, and I don't think he knew the content of the newsletters. It doesn't fit with any other things he has said or written through the years; if you read his weekly "Texas Straight Talk," many of them talk about how terrible racism is and how our current policies often defend it and perpetuate it. I think it speaks volumes that the Austin NAACP has not spoken against him either in the GOP primary in his district or the general election. The president has said he knows Ron Paul is not racist. This is like saying Sotomayor is a racist due to her Latina comments or sexist due to her women-only membership; I'm just not convinced of it even though there's more direct evidence with Sotomayor.

    What I've noticed watching Ron Paul and what I've heard from a friend of a friend who works on his staff is that he doesn't get himself involved in things that he's not interested in; he didn't have anything to do with the ads in New Hampshire and figured others could handle them, and they couldn't, and it seems he made the same mistake with this newsletter.

    I gave him a lot more than $20 and the NH ads I was upset with were the ones with his supporters sitting around and talking. So fake, so much worse than "amateurs" were posting on Youtube by the hundreds.

    The immigration ads I don't remember that well, but if they did play to the "bad" elements of the Republican base, it was not Ron Paul's doing. He has never had a compulsion to do that, as evidenced by the fact that he just joined Barney Frank in co-sponsoring a federal bill which would decriminalize marijuana. How's that going to play with most of the Republican base?

    By Blogger midnightsun, at 2:37 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home