Talking Points Memo seems determined to corner the market on stupid, and comes close to realizing the dream with this bit of drivel from one of their readers:
Your question about whether anyone had heard the phrase "up or down vote on a jobs bill" struck a chord. It's not just the jobs bill. I can't remember the last time I've heard a Democrat use the phrase "up or down vote" on any bill held up by Republicans in the Senate. This is a shame, since a demand for an "up or down vote" is a far better message than the self-defeating complaints about "Republican obstructionism" we keep hearing.
Wrong, Spanky. The only time it's a good idea to demand an "up or down vote" is when the bill in question is actually supported by a majority of the electorate. You don't hear Harry Reid and the rest of the Democrats in the Senate demanding up or downs on health care reform and cap-and-trade precisely because the last thing any one of them actually wants is to be forced to cast their vote. It's tiresome to have to point out this fact once again, but...
The reason health care reform hasn't passed is because the electorate hates the bills. Both of them. Completely. And without reservation.
Just because you decide to ignore the facts - largely because of the cognitive dissonance it produces - doesn't change the fact that those facts are facts. Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats have had a full year to craft their reform, explain it and then sell it. The result? The electorate has decided it does not want these bills and has shown itself willing to vote out of office those politicians who refuse to acknowledge their will. Poll after poll after poll confirms that fact.
That has nothing to do with "message". "Message" ain't the fucking issue here.
Anyway, the TPM dronester continues:
If I had to guess, senate Democrats (whose cowardice knows no bounds) are afraid to adopt the "up or down vote" attack is because they worry they will be called hypocrites when they are back in the minority and try to filibuster something. But the answer to this is simple: just look at the Republicans. Last I checked, the Republican senators who demanded an "up or down vote" on Roberts and Alito seem to be avoiding the "hypocrisy" label. Moreover, no matter how much Obama struggles, it's hard to imagine the Republicans fielding a decent presidential candidate in 2012. In other words, even if the Democrats do find themselves in the minority some time in the next six years, the need to filibuster will be greatly reduced as long as a Democrat holds the White House, where the more socially accepted form of obstructionism - the veto pen - will protect cowardly Dems from having to filibuster most Republican bills.
You just can't make this sort of stuff up. Does anyone without a bong, an ounce of really good Arkansas Polio Weed and permanent brain damage honestly think men like Tom Harkin and Chuck Schumer worry about being labeled hypocrites by men like Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley?
Really?
This simply has to be willful. I can understand someone like Josh Marshall buying into this sort of bullshit, but only because the people who pay his bills tell him to. When you talk to thinking Democrats, and I do, they all privately acknowledge the obvious: Both bills are shit, the public support to pass them isn't there and Obama is a political limp dick. But for whatever reason, these normally intelligent people feel compelled to publicly pretend that the real problem is such nebulous shit as "Republican obstructionism" or "Republican nihilism" and now, worst of all, "the wrong message". If there are thinking Democrats out there who really believe the only problem they've got is one of message, well... that's just endless stupidity.
Nobody ever went broke betting on the stupidity of a Democrat.
Carbon credits, anyone? They're fresh from the European market, which makes them twice as good!
Posted by: Randy Rager | February 13, 2010 at 10:43 PM
Frosted carbon credits!
Posted by: richard mcenroe | February 13, 2010 at 11:09 PM
Word from the New York Times is that The Won intends to exercise executive power across economic, environmental, and health care fronts.
I wonder; have the Dems spoken the "I" word among themselves yet?
I'm not talking The Won's favorite first person pronoun, either.
Posted by: TmjUtah | February 13, 2010 at 11:13 PM
they'd never impeach their own guy, they'll just look for rocks to hide under for the next three years
Posted by: baninwaiting | February 13, 2010 at 11:24 PM
First the Black Jesus appoints some forty czars to oversee his demolition of the US Constitution, which as a Manchurian Candidate he has been prepared for doing most of his adult life. Then he decides "recess appointments" are the way around the Republicans' blocking judgeships and other appointments, just like Black Jesus did when he as a Senator for a very short time campaigning to be POTUS.
He's the biggest hypocrite since Jimmy Carter, and will probably match James Earl's one-term wonder of an administration. We're still recovering from Jimmy's eff-ups as Iran goes nuclear and the CRA has destroyed the housing market. Nice job, peanut farmer!
Posted by: daveinboca | February 14, 2010 at 01:42 AM
'Our forces today inflicted significant opposition on the scattered elements surrounded outside our bunker..." __ Robert Gibbs
Posted by: richard mcenroe | February 14, 2010 at 01:37 PM
"Obama is a political limp dick" Oh, Michelle's not happy tonite
Happy Valentine's to you and your wife, Dennis! You're always straight-up ;)
Posted by: hey hey | February 14, 2010 at 09:51 PM
Can we get Nick to try and sell the Dems some backbone?
Posted by: Randy Rager | February 15, 2010 at 09:44 PM