tea bagger

The War Within

October 6, 2010 by Bitchy

I was surprised by how the various factions of the media handled the Sharron Angle tape that leaked over the weekend. Everybody seemed to focus in on her. Her disdain for the republican “establishment”, her willingness to make a back room deal to get the tea party candidate out of the race, and lastly, her admission that she may not win.

Personally, I didn’t think that any of that was the actual story here. Maybe because I don’t find Sharron Angle all that interesting. She’s just another run of the mill nasty bitch. She’s not the story here. But before I get to the story, I do want to point out one thing about her; she’s a hypocrite of the largest magnitude. In the tape, she accuses republicans of losing “their principles”. How rich, since this stupid bitch has spent every single day since she won the republican primary, back peddling on every fucking thing she stood for before winning the primary.

Enough of the dumb bitch. Here’s what I think the story really is. Here’s a lovely anti-Angle web video that highlights the portion of the tape that I found interesting;

It’s not her willingness to make back room deals that I find most interesting. She’s a politician, and a nasty one at that. Back room dealing is par for the course when you have that combination. It’s her easy access to Jim DeMint that fascinates me.

Jim DeMint is actively supporting the tea party nutbags, much to Mitch McConnell’s dismay. There is a war going on within the republican establishment, and no one is talking about it. Everyone is focused in on how the teabaggers are tearing the republican electorate apart. I think that the more interesting battle is happening among republican party elders. I haven’t seen one single shred of reporting on the DeMint/McConnell battle, but I know there’s one going on.

We all heard about how unhappy McConnell was when Rand Paul beat out his hand picked candidate for Jim Bunning’s open senate seat in Kentucky. But why didn’t anyone dig deeper? Why didn’t anyone talk about the strong support that Paul got from DeMint? Why didn’t anyone do a little digging into the relationship between McConnell and DeMint? Does the media think that party infighting doesn’t make for salacious news? I honestly don’t know why the media isn’t reporting on this. I can’t even throw out a conspiratorial guess.

And because they’re not reporting on this, I don’t know anything. This post will be made up almost entirely of conjecture and assumption (something I’m not generally fond of basing a post or an opinion on). But something is definitely happening within the republican establishment. They’re not as in sync as they would have us believe.

What is Jim DeMint’s problem with the current makeup of the republican party? Why is he looking to shift it? What are his issues with McConnell’s hand picked candidates? Is he just making a power play? Is he enamored with the tea party, purely out of self interest or does he have issues with the current establishment? I say “current” establishment because with the exception of Christine O’Donnell, all of the teabaggers that are running have embraced the establishment and are eager to walk among them. Does DeMint hope that McConnell won’t be able to control them and put them in line? Or is he just trying to boost republican populist cred with the teabaggers, all the while intending to work with McConnell to whip them into shape? If that’s his plan, it doesn’t appear that McConnell is in on it.

Anyway, I want to know what the story is with the infighting! Why won’t anyone look into this?

I’m curious as both a rubbernecker, and as an amateur strategist. I believe that this infighting may be the republicans’ achilles heel.

Will somebody please, for the love of god, go out there and report?

The Power Of Obtuse

September 15, 2010 by Bitchy

I’m watching one tea party nutbag after another, kick the GOPs asses in primary races across the country, and I can’t help but wonder what’s wrong with my progressive brethren? How is it possible that the most obtuse members of our society are having an impact on our elections, when no one else is?

It’s true that these teabag candidates are very likely to get crushed in the general elections, but they’re moving the republican party to dizzying heights of nutbaggery in the process. They’re forcing republican candidates to traverse into a landscape of crazy that they would never otherwise foray into. Look at what John McCain turned into as a result of having to run against JD Hayworth. He went from co-sponsoring a fairly rational immigration reform bill, to “build the dang fence”! The teabaggers are fracturing republicans, but moving them crazy right in the process.

Teabaggers have probably broken the republican party irrepably. Democrats will likely take every seat in which they’re running against a teabagger. But is that any reason to rejoice? YAY, we’re getting another worthless corporatist democrat instead of a batchit crazy teabagger that wants to change the fourteenth amendment! Bust out the champagne!

Why isn’t there a progressive movement fracturing the democratic party? Is it that progressives don’t think that the democratic party needs fracturing? That can’t be the case. If it were, there would be more voter enthusiasm by registered democrats this year.

No, we’re not happy with the party. We’re not happy with the anemic health insurance reform, the anemic financial reform, and the never ending Afghanistan situation so we’re just not bothering to show up to vote. But it didn’t have to be this way.

If only we would take a page from the teabagger’s book, we’d have some candidates on the ballot to get excited about. Sure, we came close to primarying out Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas, but we failed. And, that was the only one! Where is the widespread movement? Where is the Dennis Kucinich faction of the democratic party? Why aren’t we pushing democrats back to the left, or even left of center?

Why is it that progressives can’t accomplish what the abject morons in the tea party are accomplishing? Let’s be honest here – we’ve all seen the signs and the videos from tea party rallies. These people are fucking idiots! They don’t know shit about shit. If you put a gun to any of their heads, they wouldn’t be able to tell you how many articles there are in the constitution. I’m certain of this, because they seem to be under the impression that the constitution is a document that empowers the people. It’s not. There are seven articles in the constitution, and each article enumerates powers for different factions of the government. The peoples’ rights aren’t addressed until the amendments. There are twenty-seven of those, in case you were wondering teabaggers! They are the most obtuse among us and yet, I have to give them some props for getting shit done.

I will admit that mocking the “youth in Asia will kill your grandmother” and “don’t take my rights, I’m still useing them” signs is all sorts of fun. It’s fun until you realize that the embarrassment doesn’t lie with the dumbfuck holding the sign, it lies with us. That dumbfuck is doing more to shape politics in America than the rest of us are (well, not me – I’m trying to shame you into action with this blog!), and that should embarrass you. It embarrasses me.

We need to stop underestimating the power that a group of the most obtuse Americans have garnered, and learn from them. Yes, you read that right. I said learn from the dumbfucks.

Don’t write off the obtuse. They’re proving to be a powerful force in America.

Irrational Greed

August 1, 2010 by Bitchy

There’s no such thing. I know that you think there is, but there isn’t.

John Kerry docking his boat in another state in order to save $70,000 in taxes. Taxes that incidentally, would go to pay for initiatives he supports in his own state. I feel fairly comfortable in assuming that he and his wife’s annual capital gains dwarf that $70,000.

Martha Stewart committing the crime of insider trading so that she can make $250,000. Again, I feel very comfortable in assuming that she “earns” more that $250,000 a year in capital gains.

Every single bank executive in America paying themselves record bonuses, while collecting tax payer dollars to save the very institutions that they’re taking those bonuses from. And they did this, all the while knowing how loathsome the world would find them to be.

Charlie Rangel, committing ethics violations that put his re-election at risk (he will get re-elected, by the way), by not reporting rental income from several properties on his income taxes. Charlie, if you can afford to buy multiple properties in two countries, you can afford to pay taxes on the money that those properties generate!

BP not investing $500,000 to make sure they drill in a “safe” way, so that they don’t have to pay out billions of dollars in damages and costs to clean up a huge spill.

Massey energy not investing a few hundred thousand dollars in keeping their mines safe so that their workers don’t die, and they don’t have to pay out millions of dollars in damages.

I can go on and on in listing people taking unnecessary risks to save or obtain money that they don’t need, but you get the point.

Think I’m disproving my own point? Bear with me, I’m about to get there.

The sheer volume of these occurrences committed by people across such a diverse political and social spectrum is proof that greed isn’t irrational. It’s an inherent part of the human condition.

Time and time again, we see people and corporations take unwise and illegal risks to save or earn money that they don’t need. The only conclusion that can be made is that greed isn’t irrational. It’s normal. And the only thing preventing most of us from being excessively greedy, is the lack of opportunity.

Why the hell is Bitchy pontificating human nature on her political blog? Because I’m making the point that libertarians, republicans, conservatives, teabaggers, and Milton Friedmanites are complete idiots.

Trickle down economics is a childish philosophy that completely discounts human nature.

When rich people get tax breaks, they take that money and turn it into more money whether they need it or not. They save it, and they stockpile it. When the poor or middle class get a tax break, they spend that money thereby creating more jobs.

I’m sick and tired of hearing the Friedman philosophy. It’s stupid on its face, and it makes me Bitchy. And when I get bitchy, the only relief I can find lies in calling you for the idiot that you are for perpetuating such an obviously disprovably myth.

Stop advocating for the people that have the means and opportunity to be greedy, and adopt some greed for yourselves. They (like me) think you’re dumbfucks for supporting them anyway.

Bitchy Dictionary

April 3, 2015March 16, 2010 by Bitchy

Every time I have a conversation with a republican, I’m struck by the fact that we don’t appear to be speaking the same language. This makes the conversation much more cumbersome than it needs to be because I find myself in the position of having to combine a history lesson with a lesson on what English words mean. So I’ve concluded that it’s about time to publish a dictionary that may be useful in any political debate, since I can’t be the only person running into this language barrier. I would first like to start with defining what I like to call "Bitchy’s Words". REPUBLICAN – A person that still approves of George W Bush, happily voted for McCain, fell in love with Sarah Palin, and believes everything that John Boehner tells them. These people are batshit crazy. They have no use for facts and they exist in some bizarre alternate reality. They cannot and should not be spoken to under any circumstances. Do NOT bother using this dictionary on them, as they won’t understand the big words. CONSERVATIVE – A person that believes in small government and fiscal responsibility, REALLY believes it. They believe in fiscal responsibility when it comes to matters of spending on social programs OR defense programs. They believe in small government when it applies ALL matters including; reproductive rights, federal taxes, states’ rights, gun rights, and a myriad of other issues. This is a person that hasn’t had a party that they can believe in for nearly 40 years. They used to identify themselves as republicans, but were forced out of the republican party due to ideological differences. Conservatives generally refer to themselves as independents, members of the Ron Paul revolution, and in some instances, tea partiers. These are people that can be reasoned with! You may engage them in productive conversation. Minds may not be changed, but meaningful ideas will be shared. DEMOCRAT – These are people that inexplicably believe that the democratic party is the party that stands up for the people. They are happy with all of their democratic leaders, and are happy to accept incompetence as an excuse for why their democratic representatives haven’t delivered any legislation that actually improves their lives. Unlike republicans, democrats don’t necessarily buy the entire democratic party package, but are easily placated with implausible excuses for why their legislators can’t deliver on promises that are made. PROGRESSIVE – (Sometimes also referred to as socialist or liberal). This is a person is a sunny optimist that believes in 2 basic concepts; good government can be achieved, and we are only as strong as the weakest among us. Progressives generally like to take wholistic approaches to problem solving and aren’t afraid of sweeping change. Progressives believe in creating a society where each citizen has the same opportunities for success. Progressives identify themselves with democrats but are so unsatisfied with the party that they are actively working on changing it, which is why the current Chief of Staff to the President refers to them as "retards". TEA PARTIERS – The original modern day tea partiers were known as libertarians. They were disciples of Ron Paul that would if given a choice, dismantle the government entirely. They are proponents of privatizing everything from the postal service, to the FDA, to fire departments and police forces. Tea partiers have morphed into ignorant racists, easily duped into protesting against their own best interests by Dick Army. You cannot communicate with these people since they don’t even have a clue as to why they’re protesting, or who paid for the bus to get them to the protest. LIBERTARIANS – These are people that have no use for government. They believe in "shrinking government down so that it fits in a bathtub". A true libertarian would allow government to exist only for the purposes of defense. Libertarianism sounds cute in theory but it’s a unicorn, in that there has never been a country governed by this particular tenet. Libertarians generally cling onto their beliefs, despite being unable to come up with an example of a successful libertarian government. I can think of an example; Somalia. Okay, now on to the English dictionary. SOCIALISM – A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. This is closely related to (but not the same as) communism. An example of a socialist program in the US would be the veteran’s administration. This is a government run, government dispensed system of delivering health care to veterans. Everyone involved in dispensing health care through the VA receives a paycheck from the government. This includes doctors, nurses, administrators, etc. FASCISM – A governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. Fascism is a system of governance in which the lines between government and corporation are nonexistent. Nazi Germany is a great example of fascism because the state, military, and commerce were all under the dictatorial rule of one body. THEOCRASY – A governmental system ruled by religious tenets. The Vatican is an example of a theocrasy. If Al Qaeda had a country, they would be considered a theocrasy. Okay now that we have the words, let’s practice using them properly! Ready? A socialist government takeover of health care could be accomplished by extending the the VA system to all Americans. This would be socialist because physicians, nurses, and administrators would all be receiving paychecks from the government, which would have total control over the dispensation of health care in America. A system in which the government creates a marketplace of private insurance companies that must adhere to specific regulations in order to participate is NOT socialism because the insurance is not dispensed by the government. Doctors and their practices would not be taken over by the government since they would be paid through a private insurance system. Fascists would NEVER advocate for a socialist program because a socialist program would eliminate corporate entities entirely. Fascists want to CONTROL commerce, not decimate it. An "islamofascist" is a person that can’t exist because an Islamic extremist is driven by theocratic beliefs, thereby making them anathema to fascists, who believe in a corporate takeover of governance. Now that we have a mutually understood vocabulary, I hope that we can all go forth and have more productive political discourse. I hope you all find this helpful!