Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Liberal Media Continues to be Stunned

That Conservatives act like Conservatives.

Willard Romney is going to keep saying things like this right up to the election. From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
SIDNEY, Ohio (AP) — President Barack Obama conceded Wednesday he did poorly in a debate last week that fueled a comeback by his rival in the race for the White House. Mitt Romney barnstormed battleground Ohio and pledged "I'm not going to raise taxes on anyone" in a new commercial.

A perennial campaign issue flared unexpectedly as Romney reaffirmed he is running as a "pro-life candidate and I'll be a pro-life president." He spoke one day after saying in an interview he was not aware of any abortion-related legislation that would become part of his agenda if he wins the White House. 
11 seconds later Team Romney "walked back" Willard's latest lie which brings them right to the verge of "walking back" their candidate's lies in real-time.  In mid-sentence.

From Yahoo News:
The Romney campaign sought to walk back the comments soon after they were posted on the Register's website. "Gov. Romney would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life," spokeswoman Andrea Saul said, declining to elaborate.
And why will he continue to do this?

Because when it comes to their politics, the Republican base is no longer functionally sentient.  They are the same infinitely reprogrammable meatsticks I wrote about here  in 2006:
...these days the Last Republicans Standing are the dregs of the dregs.

Morally and politically inbred pig people who, without batting an eye, would cash in their children’s life insurance to plunk down the extra $10,000 for the special bone-speaker implants so they can have Rush and Falwell and Coulter and the rest of the cast of “GOP Friends” talking inside their heads, telling them which slogans to scream minute-by-minute, 24/7/365.

Who will not only believe absolutely any insane drivel the Dear Leader shits down their throats, but will do so while applauding and squealing for seconds.

And with an army of infinitely reprogrammable Golem for his audience, the Dear Leader does not need to worry about the quality or subtlety of his lies.
Don't me wrong:  I appreciate the careful documentation the Many Lies of Team Romney during this election season.   But I look at those efforts less as the drafting of a bill of particulars against the GOP, and more like Josephus gathering up an armful of books from burning Jerusalem and documenting the great city's demise from a perspective in the ruins.


Because for the Conservative 47% of the active electorate, the day Willard sewed up the Republican primary was the day it stopped mattering to them what lies Willard shits down their throat.  Willard has calculated (correctly) that their bottomless, mindless, berserker hatred for the Kenyan Usurper means he can get away with saying and doing literally anything and then completely reversing himself hours later and so unless he transforms himself into a Scary Democrat Negro (hence my graphic), he has the base locked down.

Willard has calculated (correctly) that the average "undecided" voter is an idiot who is barely aware that Barack Obama is President, much less who said what when.  Lies?  Truth?  All the "undecided" knows for sure is that people on both side should stop being so mean!

Willard has calculated (correctly) that most of American media is a joke run by hacks with the moral compasses of Tijuana donkey show pimps, who are congenitally unable to call a liar a liars, and who get paid on commission based on each time they say "Both Sides Do It" when a Republican shits the bed in public.

Pointing to each morning's fresh lies from Team Romney, or the Republican Congress, or Boss Limbaugh and his legions of imitators or just random Conservative idiots with spluttering apoplexy has become the the bread and butter of Liberal teevee, radio and print.  And good on them (us) for providing that service.  

It does, however, beg the question, "Who the Hell are they talking to?" Because there is no referee in this fight, kids.  

There is no umpire, here: no impartial judge; no jury of 12 good men and true.

For us, the playing field will never be level and we must stop playing as if it were, because there is no cavalry coming to rescue us but us.

And most importantly, remember that however long the odds or however discouraging a given day might be, we are a hardy and tenacious stock, and our clear understanding of who we are and where we came from gives us a secret weapon that no movement based on a contempt for reality and a tissue of lies can match.

The power to summon giants.

Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960:


The final proof is the old political adage that you can tell a friend by the enemies that he makes; and by this standard, you and I are the closest of friends. For Mr. Nixon and Mr. Dirksen and Mr. Mundt and Mr. Goldwater don't like my liberal policies, I'm glad to say, any more than they do yours. They are fighting a rear guard action against the 20th century, and they fear that our time is coming and theirs is going. I do not mean to say that the fight is wholly between the Democratic and the Republican Parties. Those of you who are here tonight are proof of the fact that some of the best friends that the Democrats have are not in the Democratic Party. [Applause.] I think in November that some of them may be in the Republican Party, but I hold out no hope at all for the vast and impressive number of Republicans who suddenly, just before election time - those who are running for office - suddenly begin to sound like true Lincolns.

Eight years ago on this occasion, Adlai Stevenson called this quadrennial outburst of affection "that pause in the real Republican occupation known as the 'Liberal Hour.'" And he added, "It should never be confused," and he was right, "with any period when Congress is in session."

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"? If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But, if by a "Liberal," they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word, "Liberal," to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960...


Anonymous said...

>It does, however, beg the question

It does no such thing. To "beg the question" is to commit a circular logic fallacy.

Perhaps you meant "raise the question".

Anonymous said...

No, it begs the question, because to "beg the question" in practice usually means using any tactics possible to avoid answering or even asking the question. You don't have to like it, you just have to live here in the same world.

Xavier Hays said...

Anonymous: Yes! It's about time this was pointed out (generally).

Batocchio said...

Being outraged is healthy, but being surprised is inexcusable. They gotta up their game... (Biden did well in that regard. We'll see how Obama does next time.)

Kevin Holsinger said...

Good morning, Mr. Glass.

It's 5:54 AM New Jersey time. I go on Dailykos to check how the Left saw the Biden/Ryan debate.

FIRST ITEM ON THE FRONT PAGE is this post of yours.

Bob Fishell said...

JFK could be speaking of today, with only a few names changed around. A giant indeed.

Anonymous said...

Like "the exception proves the rule " the phrase "begs the question" is commonly used in the opposite sense of its original meaning.