Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Another Sign Of The Apocalypse

Pete Sessions is a multi-term legislator, and head of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee. And this is how he thinks:
Mr. Sessions, in his seventh term, said Mr. Obama’s agenda was “intended to inflict damage and hardship on the free enterprise system, if not to kill it.” By next fall, he predicted, voters may regain appreciation for the era of Republican governance when “many dreams were achieved,” the size of the economy doubled and employment and financial markets hit record levels.
If that's not enough of a double-barreled bit of paranoia combined with astonishing amnesia and historical revisionism, he also said
....that the administration intended to “diminish employment and diminish stock prices” as part of a “divide and conquer” strategy to consolidate power...
And his party officially agrees. (Then Limbaugh, who commands the biggest S in RWS™, as night is followed by darker night, takes it up a notch.)

So that's where we stand, politically. Does anyone doubt the Republican Party is off the rails? Or that they can't be counted on to inject anything useful into the political arena? Really! I'm no longer surprised to hear various members of the RWS™ saying such things -- and they do, daily -- but this guy is the one designated to get Republicans elected to Congress.

If this country functions best when there are two credible parties, each able to put helpful ideas into play -- and I happen to think that's the case -- then we are ever more, increasingly, piteously, irredeemably, irreconcilably, undeniably, cataclysmically, cosmically, existentially, consequentially, Constitutionally, politically, economically, irrefutably, self-destructively, idiotically, embarrassingly, deservedly, stupidly, willingly, inexcusably, laughably, sadly, entirely, irreversibly, majestically screwed.


  1. RWS? Perhaps it's common the US, but I'm not there, and don't know what it means...

  2. Ah - I should have looked to the left on the web page.


  3. You sound surprised the Republicans aren't giving up and taking it up the Kiester like Y'all did...

  4. Sid,

    I totally agree with you, so don't think I'm an upset righty. I just wanted to point out how funny it is that you put a "TM" after your RWS, but loot all of the photos and art on your website without due credit.

    Just a thought.


  5. Mike: fair enough, although the ™ is just a joke; I just figured out how to make the sign.

    As to the other pictures, I did, for a while, indicate where they came from. But then I noticed that lots of blogs do the same thing and that it seems pretty much a literal free for all. So the only time I do it now is when it's an original piece done by a (presumably) living artist; especially if it's from their site. On the other hand, nearly any image I find is from a posting on another site, and can be found severally. I can't honestly say I know if there are legal issues or not; and I suppose the "everybody does it" defense isn't a particularly good one.

  6. Uh, Frank? My point is not that they're pushing back. Quite, assuming you understand words when they are strung together, the opposite: I said I wish they had something useful to say. But this? I mean, c'mon. I can see why YOU don't have a problem with it, but the leader of the RCCC? That's all he's got? It is to weep.

  7. I would think a Russio-File like you would recognize the closer analogy, the Repubs are like 1942 Russia, Cold, and in the Wilderness... and yeah, that makes Rush Limbo Stalin, but look how he ended up...hermetically preserved...Of course that makes the Demos the Nazis, and your boyfriend would be You-Know-Who...does share a few similarities, anti semetic advisors and belief in government run industries...Can't wait till Stalingrad.


  8. Frank,

    I've always found these comparisons between liberals and fascists to be extremely weird. That's been Jonah Goldberg's hobby horse, and I guess he honest-to-god believes it, and regards his book on the subject to be an important scholaraly work. Ann Coulter wrote a book on the subject as well.

    Fascism consists of uniting corporations, church, and govt into an authoritarian whole. There are some liberals like Stalin who are also authoritarian. I suppose you could argue that "nanny state" liberals approach fascism, but I find it unconvincing. A liberal statist could be tyrannical and destroy the country with taxes, programs, and regulations, but even this would hardly be fascism.

    The Bush II era was far, far closer. He and Cheney favored secrecy as a matter of principle. They went out of their way to pass legislation favorable to any number of corporations. They funnelled federal dollars into church programs. They took great pains to separate the traitorous from the righteous to rally their supporters, as did the Nazis. They literally claimed the power to detain any man for any length of time without charges, and to eavesdrop on any citizen for reasons unstated, and to torture anyone they regarded as a terrorist.

    Sam Spade

  9. Ah, but Sam, you have the typical liberal obsession with the meaning of words. The RWS doesn't give a crap what the word "fascist" actually means. And therefore they don't care that it doesn't mean the same thing as "socialist", which in turn doesn't mean "communist".

    All the RWS cares about eliciting an emotional reaction from their easily-deluded and always-confused audience. None of these people knows, or cares, what the words mean.

    And by the way, the current fun buzzword for this group of sheep is "tyranny".


Comments back, moderated. Preference given for those who stay on topic.

Popular posts