Sunday, July 9

Relevance is relative...

random flikr blogging
screwed, screwer, or screwy, we'll blog about ya

Okay this is my last post ever about her. If a little known DJ can get more mileage out of hanging up on you than talking to you, it's time to retire. And please don't give a speech about the politics of personal destruction on your way out. Fuck you.

Now about David Brooks. How nice that you have found a way to become suddenly relevant.

Not that I don't agree with him this time. The Party Establishment has every reason to hate the netroots. They are not loyal to The Party. They pay attention, even in mid-year, non-election cycles. They like something called the truth, no ironic quotation marks around it, and when they smell bullshit they say so. How inconvenient they are to the party leadership.

Howard, tell your planning committees they're now on a 365 day a year calendar, and while it's unusual, this time they may actually have to stand for something, come up with some ideas (you have my sympathy here, it's a hell of a mess this country's in, but you claim to want to lead, so lead) and the policy wonks better back up their ideas with a plan because some smart people with computer skills are watching. For 60K a year and a social life in Washington, your entry-level lawyers may even have to keep a promise or two.

We'll write a check when we goddamn feel like it.


  1. I really don't think Howard is the problem; it's the party apparatchiks like Schumer and Emanuel and Pelosi and Reid. I think Howard Gets It, but the establishment types refuse to listen to him. They just pat him on the head and tell him to go raise more money and build up the organization (but only in purple states!).

  2. Humans try t'lessen what they be fearin'. Many o' th'Wimpocrats presently in office be afraid of th'netroots because th'party has allowed BushCo t'do whateverthehell they feel like doin' t' th'people all these dark years with barely a whimper.

    Th'people have a voice an' it be scary t'those who don't want t'be givin' up their cushy 'I really don't work, but I get lots o' money' jobs in Washington. Sic 'em, BG...

  3. Bloggers of the world unite!

    The only thing you have to lose is your sense of helplessness!

    We are making a difference. If they didn't fear us, we wouldn't even be a blip on the radar screens.

    I think there are a lot of us out there who are refusing to toe the party line and speak out of both sides of our mouth.

    The truth doesn't seem to have an allegiance to either the left or the right.

    It's strange to me that only the lefty-bloggers are getting heat. Does the GOP establishment have to deal with their own bloggers holding their elephant feet to the fire?

  4. Maybe the rest of the world will take the hint and they'll ALL start hanging up on "babydoll" Coulter.

    And who the heck cares what the heck David Brooks thinks, anyway? Why should Dems and libs listen to advice given to them by people like Brooks? It's like we should actually be listening when Hannity or Limbaugh try to tell us "what's wrong" with US.

    Who. F'n. Cares.

  5. Eew. Do you think he meant Coulter IN a "babydoll"?


  6. Lots of truth here in both the post and the responses.

    Howard's been set up. He was the true rebel, coming in from the hills, yet was "swift boated" before swift boating came to be. His rallying cry, became a primal scream and all of a sudden everyone's more concerned who's electable as opposed to who has the best message.

    This mid-term SHOULD be a cakewalk after all of the fuck ups and bull shit this admin has heaped upon us, and yet the/we dems cannot come up with a positive alternative. "Anything/anyone but Bush" is not enough.

    I really think Dean gets it now; I really thought he got it when he ran for Pres. I really think there are people in the Democratic party who also get it: We need to shut this guy up, so lets put him (supposedly) in charge and if things fail, he'll be gone once and for all.

    I live in Washington, and Maria Cantwell's seat has been tabbed as hotly contested. She's been SILENT; she's done/said nothing to earn my vote (I don't even get form leter responses to my e-mails), and yet, do I really want her opponent (a Bush/Frist clone) in office instead? What the fuck do I do?

    I'm at my beer limit for coherent thought. Gotta go.

  7. That's right, Brooks...Don't bat a fucking eyelash when you spout trash. don't bat a fucking eyelash you cretin! You used up Conservative bloodsucking pundit! You wouldn't know what the "blogosphere" was saying if you pulled your head out to listen!

  8. and about the Coultergeist.

    Ann, honey, show me on the doll where Satan touched you.

  9. OK. Please don't kill me.

    I think Coulter is a lousy writer, a lousy pundit, and most likely a lousy person, but I don't understand why every lefty on the interwebs insists on attacking her for the way she looks. Who cares about how she looks? And if she weren't so lousy, would you still think she was so ugly?

    Anybody remember feminism? We don't need to attack a woman for the way she looks, especially when it's so damn easy to attack her for her beliefs and her apparent love of pissing people off. And especially when it appears this is only done to women.

    I don't see anybody blogging about Brit Hume's miniscule willy or how he looks like somebody slapped his face with a shovel. They don't have to. His words are ugly enough, as are Coulter's.

  10. did I say something about the way she looks? I've tried to be careful about that, and I even defended her on the whole slut/whore thing. I also think the DJ crossed the line with the dollbaby comment. But she was out and out rude. When you are an hour and a half late to an interview, the first words outta your mouth should be "I'm sorry." Instead she made self important excuses about her publicist and how pressed for time she was. She deserved the hang up.

  11. No, I was just commenting on a trend I see all over the web. I wasn't accusing you of doing it, BG.

  12. Okay, so I said the idea of Coulter in a babydoll was... gross. Sorry if I offended anyone.

    Here's one question that relates to the Brooks piece, though:

    - The lefthand of the Democratic party wants Lieberman out because he toadys up to Bush on the war. I get that.
    - He's running this fall, so he's the easy target. I get that.
    - Sen. Clinton also supports the war: she wants to send more troops over, in fact. So does Evan Bayh. So, I think, does Sen. Feinstein.
    - So, when their turn comes around, especially Clinton's, will we all be calling for their heads, too?

    Just asking...

  13. I think Lieberman has been targeted because he is such an unapologetic suck-up to Bush on so many levels. Hillary definitely will have to answer for her support of more troops, and her widely varying views on lots of issues. The others, well, it all depends on their ambitions.

  14. Clinton wants to be president. Bayh wants to be president. Feinstein? Who knows and who cares? She is a classic "Senator for life" do-little.

    That means we will have potential front-running candidates in 2008 who want to continue Bush's policies and prolong - if not expand - the war.

    Until the Democrats decide that being AGAINST the war is where the ENTIRE party should be (which means wresting power away from the DLC, NOT the netroots) then we must concede that Ralph Nader was right all along. We have a one party state now.

  15. And you're right: Lieberman is an easy target because he is just insufferable...

  16. It's good to meet someone who doesn't think that Howard fucking Dean is the Be All End All of the Democratic Party. Screw him his energy- and resource-diffusing 50 state strategy. We ought to be concentrating on winning back the borderline states that we actually have a prayer of winning in this election cycle.

    Plus, it would be nice if we had a chairman who didn't become visible only on summers before an election.

  17. JP,
    I gotta disagree with you on this one in a few ways.
    The 50 states strategy vs winning border states: I think Howard is trying to unite the country as a whole rather than "just win baby." The strategy may very well fail, but I do believe it's the higher course, and the sharpest, most positive alternative to the Rove/Bush/republican strategy of divide and conquer. I've heard that even Ann Coulter predicts we Dems my pick up as many as 60 seats between both houses. Who knows?

    As far as his visibility, I suck with dates/numbers, but I knew when he took over as party chairman, whereas, I'm not sure who was chairman before him. (Attwater?)

    I think Dean's run in '04 was very troubling, to both the Dem and Rep establishments. Kind of like Castro, he came in from the hills, and made tham all think, "What the Fuck?" He was sabotaged, but not silenced, and so where was he put? In a position where a true one-shot-wonder, total-fluke/flake could fail: He was put in charge.

    I could be missing some shit her but, it reminds me of how they tried to get rid of Teddy Roosevelt by making him VP.


I really look forward to hearing what you have to say. I do moderate comments, but non-spam comments will take less than 24 hours to appear... Thanks!