January 10, 2007

I "heart" Hunter

The pundrity has been quick to fall for the right wing's spin that the last election was about bi-partisanship. That is, the American people wanted the D's and R's to get together and Play Nice. Yeah. Right. Hunter over at DailyKos says it so much better than I could ever dream of even attempting...this post says everything I have been thinking and more.

Just a snippet...please go read the whole post.

Personally, I fully agree that America needs healing. And in the context of and as evidenced by the recent elections, I'd submit to you that the country considers healing, at this point, to be a good old fashioned asskicking of the folks who got us into this mess, followed by an iron-clad mandate to fix the problems. A mandate that is going to claim even more conservative stalwarts in the next election, unless they buck up and get moving themselves.

Ok, the premise we're momentarily working with is that George Bush has exhibited bipartisanship, or is about to, or is even mentally capable of it. The premise we're working with, based on the say-so of Republican strategists and conservative and (Lord help us) "centrist" pundits, is that the rout of the Republican party in the midterms was a demonstration of how very much America wants or needs to heal, and that healing means bipartisanship, and bipartisanship means not doing unto the Republicans what the Republicans did unto the entire country, unto their political enemies, unto their perceived political enemies, and unto their insufficiently-friendly political friends, all of which was fine and dandy and smelled like a summertime breeze during the entire time they were doing it, but suddenly began to be gauche the exact moment some Democrat, somewhere, had the power do do something in response to it. No, America didn't need "healing" when the GOP was running roughshod over civil rights, getting thrown out of their own offices in corruption scandals, were introducing more and more creative ways of sucking cash out of government coffers and into corporate contracts, and were regularly calling half of America traitors. We only need healing when the opportunity presents itself to prevent, investigate, or roll back those corruptions. That's when we all need to watch our step!

Now, let's be honest. How much of a dumb, painfully dumb, masterfully dumb, spectacularly gullible, hyperenfranchised, alcohol-addled, camera-chasing microphone-humping column-strangling jackass from the seventh circle of Grey Poupon Hell do you have to be to buy that premise even for the slightest moment as being anything other than dumbfuckery promoted by carnival barkers trying to weasel away from their own rigged game? Since when did "willing to promote any asinine hypothesis, no matter how stupid and self-serving on its face" become the defining characteristic of supposed political wisdom?

The message of the last election, a sweep of Republicans from power, polls showing a nationwide anger at the handling of Iraq and at the unending stream of cringe-inducing Republican corruption scandals -- it's not over either of those things, now, despite the polls proving the exact contrary? It's instead an earnest message from a dimwitted population that they really, earnestly want a Congress who will let bygones be bygones, and who will work together to continue the Iraq war and comply with Bush's versions of government?

Sweet merciful crap. I mean... sweet, merciful goat-molesting crap. Just how dumb do you people take us for? At long last, is this the final demonstration of what the American people is truly worth, to a "conservative" or "centrist" or "thoughtful" or "serious" Washington pundit? This is what Middle America has to argue with, for control of our own country -- this infusion of our highest levels of politics with an Orwellian passion play, the plastering over the airwaves, at long last, of utter and complete rhetorical jabberwocky?

And so here's the problem with blogging, in '07. It's going to take a superhuman effort to even take any of this nonsense seriously. It's not a question of "rebutting", or "disagreeing", or God forbid "contradicting". It's not a matter of "pointing out inconsistencies of" or "offering contrary evidence to". It's not mere disagreement, anymore.

It's more of a question of even being able to take any of these political voices seriously at all -- even seriously enough to mock.

There's a great deal of talk of civility, now, and how terrible it is that bloggers are mean. Last year, it was worth batting around the ridiculousness of that entire concept -- that fully half of America could be called traitors by people from the White House on down, and that was just grand and we couldn't get more than a handful of you bipartisan, civilized talking heads to utter a peep against such a thing, but God forbid some American somewhere in this country tells an orbiting pundit to sod off. This year, it's going to be hard to even pen a response not based entirely on belittling the entire frame of "civility" as a central tentpole in a circus of unabashed scoundrels.

No. You called us traitors. You called us traitors, by not defending us while it happened.

We owe you nothing.

On edit, digby muses on the same topic.

1 comment:

Not Your Mama said...

The ONLY upside I see coming from last nights speech:

I think he just upped the public support for impeachment about 100%. Just a guess...we'll see.

If it didn't shake the last few apples off the tree, I give up.