Sunday Audition: Kiss My Rump

With the withdrawl of Dede Scozzafava from the race for New York's 23 congressional district, the claims of the Republican party shifting towards the extreme right have become in vogue again. Indeed, the suspension of Scozzafava's campaign is being used as an excuse to trot out the accusations of the GOP being a rump anew.

It was one year ago yesterday that Paul Krugman called the GOP a rump party, based on predictions that the 2008 elections would see 15 Republican representatives lose their seats, with the majority being more moderate than the bulk of the party. Once again, reality shows that Krugman was completely off the mark, as 26 Republican congressmen lost their seats, nearly double what Krugman was basing his analysis on.

Extremist liberal Markos Moulitsas, founder of the fringe left website DailyKos.com has been beating the drum of rump status for the GOP for months. His only evidence is that approval of the GOP is highest in the level-headed working class South, the region the lions share of Republican senators hail from.

And now with moderate Dede Scozzafava leaving the race, claims that the GOP has abandoned the mainstream to pander to the base have reached new highs.

Well, firstly as a complete rebuttal to Moulitsas' ridiculous claims, note that the race here is for a congressional seat in New York. Last time I checked, New York wasn't part of the South.

But more importantly, note that the official voice of the GOP in this circumstance, the NRCC, has now endorsed Doug Hoffman. Polling indicated Hoffman had three times as much support as Scozzafava, if not more. Thus the NRCC switched to a candidate favoured by more New Yorkers, a move that only partisan hacks could claim was anything but appealing to moderates.

Indeed, if either of the two major political parties is pandering to their base and conducting purges of those who don't toe the party line, it's the Democrats. For simply engaging in some attempts at bipartisanship, Joe Lieberman is being threatened with having his committee assignments revoked.

All of this is even more astounding since the topic driving all of this political posturing is socialized medicine. Can there be a greater example of how far the Democratic leadership is pandering to the extreme left base?

The fundamentalist progressives that have taken over the Democrat party were initially pushing for a universal single-payer system like "Medicare For All", but in the race to pander the most to these hardcore left-wing extremists, that has morphed into the public option that is in the proposed bills from both House and Senate. Not content with the complete government take-over of health insurance, these liberal activists pushed for a public option where a small fraction of the US population would get to choose to enroll in a government insurance program. And the Democratic leadership was all to happy to add this decidedly pro-choice persepctive.

Indeed, the Senate version even allows entire states to choose to not offer the program at all.

Considering all of that, it's clear which party is being run by fanatical ideologues.

Speaking of Fail

Four days ago, Irky Irksome closed out a post with this:

Besides, in the face of a crushing defeat to Scozzafava, we can be a bit magnanimous

Crushing defeat.  Crushing.  Defeat.

Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava has announced that she is suspending her campaign, citing an inability to win in light of recent polls and a lack of money

BWAHAhaHAHahhaHAHaHAHHahahahhaHAHahahHA!

Posted Without Comment

Fail.

Pajamöller’s Tale

First they came for communists, and we cheered!

Then they came for the socialists, and we cheered!
Then they came for the trade unionists, and we cheered!
Then they came for the Islamofascist hordes, and we cheered!
Then they came for any brown folks that had slightly Islamic sounding names, and we cheered!
Then they came for the remaining brown folks, especially the dirty messican illegals, and we cheered!
Then they came for Teh Ghey, and we cheered!
Then they came for single mothers, and we cheered!
Then they came for women with jobs, and we cheered!
Then they came for everyone who ever voted Democratic, and we cheered!
Then they came for anybody Roger Simon didn’t recognize on sight as a good conservative, and we cheered!
WOLVERINES!!!!!

h/t Ted the Slacker

Not the one with Chris Rock

Substance McGravitas informs me that my namesake, Dragon King Wangchuck has been named the third hottest head of state by some goofball named J.D. Dobson.

Really J.D.?  Really?
Let me ask you this, what does it take to be number one?
Two is not a winner and three nobody remembers.
I. Am. Number. One.
Don't matter if you like
Here, sit down and write it.

Hell, number two ain't even a head of state - Jens Stoltenberg is a Prime Minister, Harald V is the King.  Oh wait, you guys have got something to say about that.

One of the worst things about the internet is the anonymity it provides a certain class of individuals to spew their hateful, offensive speech. Specifically: nerds.

Umm, hate to break this to you guys but you're blogging about the relative hot-ness of heads of state.  On the internet.  Nerds = you.  And before you put on your "I WIN" shirt, yes - I'm blogging about you blogging about Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck so I'm a nerd too.  But the difference is I'm not the one castigating nerds as "a certain class of people".  PROTIP, all your readers?  Reading about heads of state on the internerd?  Nerds.

Maybe you missed our FAQs where we sarcastically professed ignorance about this.

I appreciate that you're supposed to be some sort of humour site.  PROTIP #2, if you have to tell people you're being sarcastic - U R DOIN IT RONG.

Here's the thing, yeah I laughed a couple times reading your site - but it struck me as such a wasted opportunity.  Because your list is obviously glaringly factually wrong.  It's not funny in the "well there's a deep and penetrating insight phrased in a remarkably humourous fashion" but more along the lines of yelling "PENIS" for no obvious reason.

I mean, you obviously put some time and effort into this thing - you've got 192 172 (UPDATE: you'd think it would be easy to count them since they're numbered...) countries on your list, finding pictures for all of them probably took more effort than you're willing to admit.  You've already put in the "lot of work", and you decide to throw it all away with blatantly incorrect garbage.  You could spike your blog with comedic gems that sparkle with the mirth of drunken angels, but if those jokes are on a page claiming that Gordon Brown is the head of state for the UK, it's not gonna get the laughs.  PROTIP #3, no one is going to think you're particularly witty if it seems like you are unaware of the existence of THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND.

And anyways, Dragon King Wangchuck is fucking HAWT.  Dragon.  King.  Wangchuck. 
There ain't no topping that
'cept with a Dragon Crown Hat.
So lurn 2 play J.D. Dobbie
Put some thought into your hobby
And shut down that Tymoshenko lobby.
He is a Dragon, He is a Man, He's a Dragon-Man
Dragon.  King.  Wangchuck.  Accept no substitutions (except me of course)

In Praise of Fox News

Well, well - another stretch of no posts.  Interspersed with my whining about not getting any comments.  FFS, if I'm not going to bother writing here, why the hell should anyone else?

Anyways, I'm just going on record here to proclaim my undying adoration of Sith Lord Dark Hottiest.  Also, since it's been a while since I posted, I can use this opportunity to crib a bit wholesale.

Don't call it a comeback, I've been here for years,
Rocking my peers and puttin' suckas in pH33r.
Dontcha nevah evah pull my lever, 'cause I exploooode
And my nine is easy to load.

Manic Post Partisan Depression

Harold Myerson gets it right.  Eugene Robinson gets it exactly right.  Ruth Marcus gets it so very wrong.

Myerson:

Fundamentally, it's a statement of gratitude for America opting to end the Bush years, spare the world a continuation of Republican belligerent provincialism, and rejoin the reality-based community of nations.

Yes Harold, the award should go to the American electorate for turning their backs so very emphatically on the dark and harrowing years of conservative grhhhargleblargle9-11!RAWWWRRR-a-blart.  Except that you morans were the ones that caused this mess in the first place.  And don't give me no guff about how Chimpy never actually won any elections, 49% of you voted for him in 2000, and then even more of you did the same thing in 2004 after you got a taste of his incompetent and damaging "strong leadership".

But that's okay.  You managed to figure it out - taking neo-cons out of the policy-making levels of the world's remaining superpower is a huge step forward for peace.

Robinson:

Others say the award is “premature.” Okay, I can see that argument, but the Nobel committee apparently considered Obama’s redirection of American foreign policy toward multilateralism a groundbreaking accomplishment. The committee, it seems, thought that for the most powerful national leader in the world to embrace international cooperation and envision a world no longer menaced by nuclear weapons was a giant step forward. I can see that argument, too. In fact, I think I agree with it.

This.  If only he added that the "redirection" isn't an easy thing, then it would have been perfect.  Because, make no mistake, simple and plainly obvious things like actually attempting diplomacy instead of labelling random countries "evil" and building up military presence at their borders - that is frowned upon in the USA.  I mean, in the name of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her unsee-able obviousness) - the US is still a country where "anti-war" is used as an insult.  Truth of the matter is that America has an intensely  bloodthirsty militaristic culture.  War, and all that goes with it is glorified and held in high esteem.  Negotiating, talking and not immediately reaching for your biggest gun is seen as "ghey" or naive or traitorous or, more likely, all of the above.

Marcus:

Please. This turns the award into something like pee-wee soccer: everybody wins for trying.

Yes Ruth.  Because pursuing peaceful resolutions is so very easy in the US.  Because America is so very supportive of not bombing people.

Obama gets the award for, what, a good nine months? Or maybe a good two weeks -- the nominations were due Feb. 1.

 Well, nominations and final decisions don't happen at the same time, that "two weeks" talking point is a clear attempt to misdirect people.  But I'm feeling generous and I'll let that slide.  Let's take your obviously false premise as true and run with it.  What the hell did Obama do in two weeks that earned him a Nobel Peace Prize?

HE REPLACED THE ADMINISTRATION OF GEORGE W. BUSH.

Pull your head out of your ass long enough to recognize this: George W. Bush and his administration was the single-most destabilizing force in the world.  His idea of international co-operation was recess appointing John Bolton as your Ambassador to the UN.  Saber-rattling wasn't the default position of that Administration, it was their concession position after realizing that they probably couldn't get away with yet another regime changing invasion.  Nevermind the attitude taken towards international agreements, refusals to ratify measures the rest of the world thought beneficial for global peace and prosperity - those things pale before the fact that for years, the US military had more kills than the rest of the armed forces in the world combined.  And that a lot of people in the US are proud of that, some of them writing in the very same space as you *cough*Bill Kristol*cough*.

Well anyways - let's "look forwards not back" and see what else you have to offer:

If the Nobel Committee ran out of worthy candidates, it might have engaged in a bit of recycling. Nothing wrong with a second prize to Aung San Suu Kyi (1991).

WTF?!?!  You spent the entire column complaining about how Obama hasn't achieved anything yet, about how pre-mature it is to give him any awards, about how his winning the Nobel Peace Prize is "ridiculous" - and your suggestion is to go with a second Nobel to Aung San Suu Kyi?

I don't mean to say anything negative about the dear aunt, but do you even recognize how incredibly stupid what you're saying is?  It's your position that the prize should go to someone for their achievements - not for "just trying".  And while bringing democracy to Myanamar is a noble and worthy goal - Aung San hasn't quite achieved that, now has she?  Seriously, I respect her for her principled stand and her perserverence to her convictions, but I can't even begin to see how you could argue that a second Peace Prize for her would be about "doing, not being".