Acquiring a Taste for Fears


In a column headlined "Paranoid About Paranoia," Ross Douthat suggests that

obsessing about the paranoia of the masses is often a way for American elites to gloss over their own, entirely nonsymbolic failures. In the Bush era attacking the conspiracy theories of the 'angry left' made it easier for conservatives to avert their eyes from the disaster the Iraq war had become. Today, establishment liberals would much rather fret about the insanity of the Republican base than reckon with the unpopularity of Barack Obama's domestic program.

Reason readers will not be surprised that I agree.

NEXT: Why Does Sen. Wyden Want to Exempt Oregon From ObamaCare's Individual Mandate?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If you ain’t afraid then you ain’t paying enough attention!

  2. Your fears are so yummy and sweet.

  3. Attacking a politician and his supporters is hardly a new phenomenon, of course. See the election of 1800 onward. The names and parties have changed, but etc. etc.

  4. I don’t get Jesse’s reference in the title. Somebody ensmarten me.

    1. Macbeth. “I have almost forgot the taste of fears.”

      1. That’s almost as much of a stretch as the shorts I practically had to bungee-jump into yesterday.

      2. your noble spirit enbiggens the smallest man.

      3. He just wants you to think the left is full of conspiracy nuts–because that’s what the Koch Brothers want you to think!

        I don’t know who this Macbeth person is, but somethin’ tells me that if he’s involved in this, he’s probably involved with the Koch brothers too!

    2. Perhaps “fears” is a play on “tears,” which is itself an obscure libertarian inside joke.

      1. I had no idea libertarians liked 1980s British boy bands, especially since they presumably don’t want to rule the world.

        1. Actually, I was referencing the “your tears are yummy” meme.

          1. Cartman quotes are now memes?

            1. Who is “Cartman”?

              1. Who is “Cartman”?

                Ha, that’s funny, dude…wait, you’re joking, right?

              1. That’s where I thought it originated. Not? Now I feel sad, just like with the Easter Bunny.

              2. Ah, the Salty Ham picture. My stomach’s growling.

  5. Well, yeah. Currently, the left would rather screech about Glenn Beck and “racist” teabaggers, than engage in any discussion about federal spending.

    1. Erh, the narrative currently is that these teabaggers are all being orchestrated by powerful Wall St. elites and Fortune 500 CEOs, like David Koch.

      1. Like Congress?

  6. Libertarian + false equivalence = GOP apologist.

    Whatever fantasies the right had about a paranoid left (so paranoid they thought the Iraq war and legal torture were colossal mistakes! Those silly leftists…), that doesn’t change the fact that the paranoid Republican “base” is not a fringe element of that party, it is the only element.

    1. You are not paranoid Tony. You just think everyone who disagrees with you is a “fringe element”.

      Tony, you are the best performance art on the web.

      1. I just don’t think that everything is likely to be equivalent, as the “pox both houses” crowd would like to believe. It’s just not very probable. When majorities of self-identified Republicans believe that the president is a Muslim and other such nonsense, something is wrong.

        1. But you were totally undisturbed by 1/3 of all Democrats believing that George Bush knew about 9-11 before it happened. That is a lot more deranged than thinking a guy who grew up going to Madras might be a Muslim. And further, who cares if he is a Muslim. Aren’t Muslims Americans to?

          1. Actually what most disturbs me is the Republicans’ universal belief in voodoo economics and their penchant for stirring up bigotry to win elections. Wake me when truthers take over the Democratic party.

            1. If only Republicans universally believed in actual fee market economics. Don’t worry Tony. The world belongs to economic illiterates like you. The rest of us just live in it.

              1. Yeah, Tony, you’re right… there is never any stirring-up of bigotry on the part of Democrats. No hate speech coming from that side, either.

                1. It’s always the same strawman bullshit with you FIFY. I make a claim about the GOP, and you sarcastically imply that I’m somehow saying the Dems are therefore perfect.

                  1. When we all know they are “pluperfect”.

                  2. Did you or did you not just say that the paranoid left is a “fantasy” and that the paranoid right is the “only element”?

                    1. Brad P. what is the paranoid left? Truthers? Even if I accept that most truthers are leftists (that’s not the case), that’s the only group I can even think of. There are hardcore liberals, but they tend to at least rely on facts, something even the “mainstream” right is not burdened with these days. I’m just not seeing the equivalence here.

                    2. what is the paranoid left?

                      Hard core environmentalists
                      anti-Semites convinced the Isrealis run US policy (see Walt and Mersheimer)
                      People who are convinced Bush invaded Iraq to boost his Haliburton shares

                      I think about 90% of liberals believe in one or more of those four things.

                    3. “”what is the paranoid left?””

                      Those who believed Bush is a terrorist?

                    4. If you add “People who are convinced that bad spellers are right wing kooks” you can put me in the 90 percent camp.

                    5. First off, that has nothing to do with what I said. You accused Mr. FIFY of a strawman when you are basically saying that there is no paranoid left and that there is only paranoid right.

                      Second off, your bias is showing. Matt Ridley is out to serve his corporate interests in destroying the world. The Koch brothers are pulling the strings behind the Tea Party movement to ensure their economic dominance of the world. George W. Bush was an evil fascist, but Obama is a misguided pragmatist.

                      Mainstream liberals have been engaging in paranoid attribution of heinous intentions for decades now.

                      When righties say George Soros is spending millions on bringing socialism to the US, they are paranoid crazies. When lefties say the Kochtopus is spending millions to bring about government by corporations, they are rational protectors of civilization.

                    6. When righties say George Soros is spending millions on bringing socialism to the US, they are paranoid crazies. When lefties say the Kochtopus is spending millions to bring about government by corporations, they are rational protectors of civilization.

                      Brad, thank you for finally pointing out this blatant hypocrisy.

                    7. Brad P. what is the paranoid left?

                      Google is your friend.

                    8. Brad P. what is the paranoid left?

                      Those that believe a non-Democratic victory will result in a return of Jim Crow?

                    9. “Bush stole the election!” is another example of left leaning paranoid conspiracy.

                  3. Well, in essence, Tony, that is exactly what you do.

            2. Tony|9.7.10 @ 10:40AM|#
              “Actually what most disturbs me is the Republicans’ universal belief in voodoo economics…”

              Hey, if you don’t have an argument, come up with some pejorative adjective and run with it.

            3. Actually what most disturbs me is the Republicans’ universal belief in voodoo economics

              When did the Democrats reject Keynesianism?

            4. It really annoys me when people refer to “voodoo economics”.

              They will invariably decry how supply side economics is merely a handout for the rich, and in turn, support policies that are specifically designed to make it easier for rich people to make money.

              Does a single one of them realize that increasing demand basically involves providing the current holders of money with guaranteed supernormal profits?

        2. If any pollster asks me if I know what Obama’s religion is, I’m going to say he’s a devout Muslim, and I’m going to say I learned that from a joint statement made by Beck/Palin/Rove/Limbaugh/Hannity/Bachmann/Cheney while they were all sitting in Palin’s hot tub. (Did I miss anyone from the rogues gallery of current leftist bogeymen? Maybe Fred Phelps, but given that the dude is or was a registered Democrat, that doesn’t really work).

          Why? Because I enjoy seeing how batshit crazy the left is getting over the “Obama is a Muslim” thing. They just can’t stop talking about it. And by “talking about it” I mean “whining and complaining, and insulting everyone who doesn’t have a Mother Jones subscription.”

          You hear that, lefties? Obama’s a Muslim. Now proceed with your tantrum. Dance, monkey, dance!**

          (Yes, I said “monkey” and “Obama” in the same paragraph. Raaaaaaaacist!)

          1. i agree.
            when you see how many people believe Elvis is alive, or believe in bigfoot, or believe they have been abducted by aliens and anal probed (what is it with these people and anal prober-ery??? me thinks they doth protest too much) the fact that only 20% or so of the poplulation believes the president is a Muslim speaks well of American cromulence.

        3. Tony, roughly half of Democrats say that Obama is either a Muslim or that they aren’t sure what he is.

          1. You’re just saying that because the Koch Brothers have gotten to you!

            You may think it sounds crazy, but they’re taking over everything. And pretty soon the whole world is gonna be run by the Koch Brothers!


            1. That’s so yesterday. Everyone knows that the Kochs are just a front for Mark Hamilton and his Neothink and TVP scams.

        4. You people should be ashamed of yourselves for your indulgence in the counter arguments Tony ready makes for you like brownies from an Easy Bake oven.

          I believe you sometimes call this ‘low hanging fruit.’

        5. Leftist: The left is better than the right.

    2. Tony = everything I disagree with is a right wing fringe element, because I say so. I know this because of my crazy uncle.

      1. Oh noes! Are the Koch Brothers Tony’s uncle?

        Have they gotten to him too?!

        Are you saying that Tony was a front for the Koch Brothers the whole time?! The whole time, he was just here trying to make the left look bad?

        I knew it.

    3. Whatever fantasies the right had about a paranoid left (so paranoid they thought the Iraq war and legal torture were colossal mistakes! Those silly leftists…

      You’re going to have to help me out here: what causes you to conclude that the right thought that the left opposed the Iraq War and torture out of “paranoia” (as opposed to bad judgment)?

    4. I’m sorry, I’m not letting this go: Tony, how can you said that the “paranoid Republican ‘base’ is… the only element” of the party?

      1. Would you like the historical reasons? Because for decades now they’ve been focusing their electoral strategy on one easily fooled and easily frightened demographic (aka likely voters), who in turn have been increasingly demanding on the party leaders to be as pure as possible. Predictably, the people who were once the party’s useful idiots are now the ones, by the necessity of their demands for purity, who are getting elected to office. The base has taken over, I think that’s pretty obvious. Hardcore liberals are still a pain in the ass to Democrats, not the people whose every whim they cater to.

        1. First off, hardcore conservatives are being a major pain in the ass for a good deal of republican politicians (Bob Bennett?). Second off, hardcore liberals are NOT a pain in the ass to democrats because democrats know they have them scared into submission.

          There is a reason democrats are big-moneyed interest serving neoliberals. Because progressives are scared shitless at this point of the other side. Nevermind that both parties agree on fundamentally everything.

        2. “Because for decades now they’ve been focusing their electoral strategy on one easily fooled and easily frightened demographic” See Democrats and minorities. But you’re right, only Republican white trash vote ignorantly, not like the blacks.

          1. How could anybody support either party out of anything but ignorance. Voting for a national office holder basically states “I believe this person knows how to run the nation.”

            Anybody who things they are knowledgeable enough to decide which Senate or Presidential candidate has the correct plan for governing the US is delusional to a pretty high degree.

            If choosing appropriate policy for the US on the federal level requires 1,000,000 knowledge units (ku), Joe the Plumber has 10ku and Paul Krugman has 100ku.

            Sure Paul Krugman would be 10 times more qualified to make policy decisions, but he is still incredibly inadequate. And that even simplifies the analogy by assuming Paul Krugman couldn’t possibly be in the negative by believing things that aren’t true.

            1. If we could only concoct a mathematical equation to deduce a candidates effective governing skill then we could do away with voting altogether!

              1. It is scary that modern-day liberals have become so technocratic that they would treat that idea as a pipe dream rather than a nightmare.

                1. This is how President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho will be elected in the year 2504.

                  1. President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho

                    Okay, Upgrayyed, that movie wasn’t that good.

                    1. Is that you, bro? You were knocking that movie the other day.

                      It would also make your next statement ironic because you are the most Mexican looking member of the family.

                    2. You say that now, but it will prove to be prophetic. Just give it 500 years or so.

                    3. Oh, it was prophetic, but just not as funny as it should/could have been.

                      And no, Pierre, you must have me mistaken for another Tom…I look Arab, not Mexican.

                    4. I’m a little relieved. I noticed your comments on another thread and they rang true to my brother. Then, that knock on Idiocracy when he and I had just talked about it.

                      It was starting to feel a little close to home.

                      Not my usual handle, btw. It was a necessary precaution. I used this one a few years back to troll as a Frenchman who lusted after Chelsea Clinton.

          2. See Democrats and minorities

            Damn! You beat me to it.

        3. Tony, how many times has your party tried to scare the bejezus out of voters with “they’re gonna take your Social Security away” and other bullshit tactics?

          But, hey, if you want to keep playing the “useful idiots are only on your side of the fence” card, keep flippin’ ’em on the table. Some of us have no more use for your party than for Team Red, but keep playin’ THAT card, too.

    5. Tony, the paranoia of the left was things like Bush/Chaney knowing about 911 before it happened, and plans to stage some sort of coup by the Bush administration.

      1. Two points:

        1) Truthers are not universally liberals; and 2) the actual record of the Bush administration is bad enough that no extra conspiracy theorizing is necessary.

        1. “the Bush administration is bad enough that no extra conspiracy theorizing is necessary.”

          Tell me one thing of the Bush era war on terrorism/ security state polies that Obama has made once once of effort to change or repeal.

          Cause last time I checked he has either done nothing or even exasserbated it. Even Bush didnt dream of an American citizen execution program. Nor did he claim the right to check any email he desires without a warrent. But when the enlightened one abused executive power and tramples on privacy thats “fact based.”

          1. I like “exasserbated”
            can I use that?

        2. I think that most people here think the record of Bush2 is pretty bad in any number of areas.

          The Tea-Party is a mixture of a lot of people with a variety of actual views so it is misleading to characterize the whole movement since they don’t really have a platform. I think many of us here have an innate sympathy toward some of their economic positions without really being involved with the Tea-Party itself.

          Here’s a paranoid scenario for all of you to contemplate: What if a lot of deem-ocrats are saying Obama’s a Muslim just so they can call the other side stupid? (they would also have to lie and say they are on the other team). But we know that both parties have plenty of liars. Please spread this theory through cyber-space. Thank you.

    6. Whatever fantasies the right had about a paranoid left (so paranoid they thought the Iraq war and legal torture were colossal mistakes! Those silly leftists…), that doesn’t change the fact that the paranoid Republican “base” is not a fringe element of that party, it is the only element.

      You’re the one screwing up the comparison.

      Those on the right who think Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim are comparable to those on the left who thought Bush stole the 2000 election and 9/11 was an inside job.

      Those who merely opposed the war and torture are comparable to those on the right who merely oppose stimulus, bailouts, and the health care bill.

      1. Bush stole both elections. 2000 AND 2004 IIRC. If only there was some commenting transportation planner from Lowell Mass who could remind us.

        1. Oh he only got fewer votes and was installed by a partisan supreme court. No cause for any concern there!

          1. “Oh he only got fewer votes”

            How is that relevant, given that our presidential elections aren’t based on votes? Basing a nationwide election on vote totals gives an edge to those regions that undermine democracy by adding extra votes (Democratic areas) over regions that undermine democracy by making it harder for citizens to vote (Republican areas). That’s a pretty partisan complaint.

  7. And on cue Tony entirely backs up Douthat’s point about partisan hacks preferring distraction over self-examination.

    1. Ding! Ding! Ding! Circle gets the square!

  8. I guess reason is one of those magical entities that is part of both the VRWC and the NWO, eh?

    Speaking of VRWC, is HRC the new inhabitant of Cheney’s undisclosed location? I haven’t heard the first thing from her, which is weird because usually the SecState is pretty tightly integrated into Israeli-Palestine peace talks.

    1. I was just thinking the same thing: where the hell is Hillary?

      Until today, she’s been one of the least consequential Secretaries of State in recent memory. Perhaps this is not that surprising given that America’s most pressing foreign policy issues are matters of war – handled by DoD and the President directly – rather than of diplomacy.

      HRC is further minimized by how Obama marketed himself during the campaign and sees himself today. One of Obama’s selling points – adopted by many of his fanboys, especially Milky Loads – was that electing an urbane, worldly, multiracial President with an Arabic middle name and Muslim ancestry would signal to the world that America wanted to reconcile with the Muslim world and Europe. Obama’s rhetoric and actions have indicated that he does believe in the transformative power of… Obama. Electing Obama wasn’t just a change in policy; it was the installation of a symbol. So much of Obama’s foreign policy depends on him being that symbol. You can’t delegate the symbolism of a hip young black guy to a frumpy old broad.

      That probably explains HRC’s absence from the Israel/Palestine talks. If it’s an Arab or Muslim issue, Obama is The Guy, or at least he’s convinced that he is.

      1. I don’t say many good things about HRC, but frankly, I’m thrilled she’s not in my face every day like Rice was.

        1. Don’t worry, Histroy Channel can remedy that this weekend.

      2. HRC (Hillary Rodham Clinton) and HCR (Health Care Reform). Coincidence? I think not!

      3. Masturbatin’ Pete|9.7.10 @ 11:00AM|#
        “I was just thinking the same thing: where the hell is Hillary?”

        Just exactly where Obama wants her; out of the public eye.

    2. The Democratic Party is going down in flames in two months, and she doesn’t want to be caught in the wreckage. Afterwards she can show up at the crash site sounding all reasonable and position herself for 2012.

      1. That makes alot of sense.

      2. No chance. Unless Obama “willfully” bows out, there is no way Team Blue admits Barry was a massive mistake by not renominating him.

        Perhaps she makes a run is 2016, but we will se no challengers because most of the democratic party still see Barry’s election as a vote for progressivism, not as a refudiation of Bush.

        1. Obama may bow out. No reason not to position yourself just in case. Remember, a main reason Clinton got the nomination in ’92 was that Mario Cuomo, who everyone thought would run, didn’t because he thought Bush was unbeatable.

          1. Why would Obama not run?

            There is only one President (who did not succeed to the Presidency from the death of his predecessor) who did not run for re-election. What do you see in Obama that would make you even consider that he might be the second?

            1. Several reasons. Do you ever get the sense he’s a bit of an empty suit, going through the motions? I do. The presidency might just be another resume line for him, and he’s already clearly frustrated with the actual job. He can then get himself made head of the UN, or something else glamorous and international. The longer he stays, the less he can blame Bush for everything. He’s going to hate dealing with a Republican House and a deadlocked or Republican Senate, because he’s not the compromising sort like Clinton was.

              My gut sense is that he’ll run again, though, not least because Michelle loooooves the perks.

  9. When will get Michael Moynihan’s pro-elite rebuttal?

    1. Sorry, I was in the shower. What did I miss?

  10. Perhaps partisan hacks prefer distraction because they know all too well where self-examination will lead.

    And perhaps — only a thought, mind you — the partisan hacks are motivated by something other than a disinterested desire to make policy choices for the public good.

    1. How dare you call them partisan hacks! They are “ideologically pure team members”, like Pete Rose.

      1. You aren’t worthy to be gagged with Pete Rose’s jockstrap.

        1. Yet I have been, so I guess that throws your assertion out the window.

          1. But you felt unworthy, no?

  11. It has nothing to do with Barack Obama and the unpopularity of his policies, and everything to do with that warm fuzzy feeling you get when all rational, intelligent, and knowledgeable people agree with you.

    No matter who was in power and what policies were pursued, I would have no doubt that this big population of over-educated and affluent liberals would take refuge in the knowledge that their ideological opponents are all evil or stupid.

    1. example #1: Thomas Frank’s “What’s the matter with Kansas?”

      If the conservative base is so dumb and prone to bamboozling, how come smarty-pants liberals can’t outsmart them?

      1. That’s how they know there’s a conspiracy. They should be smarter than those hillbilly, redneck, gun-clutchin’ idiots. There’s obviously a malicious and shadowy power thwarting them.

        Or, they aren’t as smart as they think they are.

        Nah. Obviously a conspiracy.

      2. They have. That’s why we have a federal gov’t that spends 18% of the GDP and we have a gazillion dollar debt.

      3. Yes. Glenn Reynolds made a great point about the New Yorker hit piece on the Kochs. The article has nothing to do with the Kochs. The article is all about prepping the New Yorker readers to still feel good about themselves after the Democrats get destroyed in November. It wasn’t that they were wrong or their policies failures. It will all be because of evil and behind the scenes acts done by billionaire libertarians.

        1. *Sigh*… if only American politics really were secretly controlled by billionaire libertarians….

          1. That’s what they want you to think!

      4. Well, the mansplanation that libertarians usually give for our ineffectiveness with the masses is that we’re to honest and principled to stoop to the emotional appeals and such that the Rs and Ds trade in.

        I don’t think liberals have that mansplanation available to them.

        1. Really? I usually go with the simpler explanation: most people want to keep getting “free” shit from the .gov. When a majority of your platform is no free stuff and figure things out yourself, it shouldn’t come as any great surprise it’s unpopular.

        2. I thought our line was that everyone believes s/he has enough self-control but those other people need governing. Dammit. Time to turn in another decoder ring.

  12. I was wondering if Ross Douthat could write a whole essay without making a fool of himself. He couldn’t:

    “There’s the 32 percent of Democrats who blame ‘the Jews’ for the financial crisis. There’s the 25 percent of African-Americans who believe the AIDS virus was created in a government lab. There’s support for state secession, which may have been higher among liberals in the Bush era than among Republicans in the age of Obama. And there’s the theory that the Bush White House knew about 9/11 in advance, which a third of Democrats endorsed as recently as 2007.”

    Agree with secessionism or not — an elitist like Douthat predictably finds it on par with anti-Semitism — how is a prescriptive view like that even comparable to descriptive views like the others?

    1. Good catch!

      My guess is that Douthat was relying on an implicit link between the secessionism and political nutballs. I don’t know if the proportion of kooks in the secessionist ranks is any higher than in the general population, but that’s probably the conventional wisdom.

    2. Probably because it’s near the top of his “My Pet Peeves” list.

    3. I wouldn’t say that that is quite to the level of making a fool of himself. Right or wrong, state secession is a dead issue and has been for 145 years. Not going to happen. But you are right that it doesn’t quite fit.

      1. Dead issue? You seem pretty certain about the future. Think there will be a United States in 2525? Maybe we can wager on that and let the cryogenically preserved bodies of Reason’s staff collect for the winner.

        1. The end of the US need not come as a result of states seceding.

          And there will probably be slavery and racial segregation at some point in the distant future, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are dead issues for the present time.

      2. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…

        Presidents Johnson and Bush? Completely unnecessary.

        The next time Texas wants to leave the union–we should let them!

        1. If the President concluded a treaty ceding Texas to Mexico and the Senate ratified it would it be legal? Please say the answer is yes.

  13. OK that actually makes a lot of sense dude.

  14. Isn’t legal torture a good thing? It’s legal, right?

  15. Things look weird here. New clutter on the pages, odd typefaces.

    1. You see it too, thank god, I was starting to feel like Roddy Piper in They Live.

      1. Well, I didn’t see it until this guy beat the crap out of me and made me put on these funky glasses.

        1. Not this year.

      2. I came here to fix html and chew bubble gum… And I’m all out of bubble gum.

    2. Worst.



      *Except for Comic Sans.

      1. I don’t think it is the font. I think they invented a new font feature called “Light” Instead of bolding something so you can see it better, you can make it lighter so it’s impossible to read.

        1. 3 people like this.

          1. Max’s button:

            ? 3 people like this. libertards have choked on Ron Paul’s racist koch

      2. They’ve implemented a new thing called Typekit that allows websites to use fonts that people don’t have to have installed locally.

    3. Looks like a condensed frutiger derivative.

      1. It’s FF Meta, the same typeface used in the print edition.

    4. The top of the page renders completely fucked up in XP.

  16. Are we going to pretend that things look the same around here…anybody? It’s like when a sit-com gets a new dad because the old one came out of the closet, everyone just pretends like this new dude is the same one…creepy.

    Can we do blinky tags yet?

    1. Yes, that seems fair. We accept the changes, and our freedoms are returned to us.

      I bet Virginia is the EIC again. And we’ll be told that she never left.

      1. It would be as ifReason never went down hill at all.

    2. Hit & Run, September 7, 2010: the first appearance of the new Darrin.

  17. Oh wow, Ok this really does make a lot of sense. WOw.

    1. AnonBot, are you secretly RacistBot?!?

      1. He is all Bots to all people.

  18. Agree with secessionism or not — an elitist like Douthat predictably finds it on par with anti-Semitism — how is a prescriptive view like that even comparable to descriptive views like the others?


    1. Yes, the sheriff is near.

    2. We should strive to reference Maiden every chance we get.

      1. All we need for the Obama administration is an endless loop of “Run To The Hills”.

      2. If Obama gets re-elected I’m gonna make a Run to the Hills.

        1. Let’s hope whatever toolbag shill the GOP uses as a fisted ventriloquist’s dummy doesn’t act like it’s “2 Minutes to Midnight”.

          1. Palin, Gingrich, Huckster, Romney.

            Yay! So much to look forward too!

            After the Lamest President in American History (there have been worse, but none to match Obama’s worthlessness as an executive), shouldn’t there be a massive change in the zeitgeist to get away from flakes who may have a little personality to bolster them to someone who may be dull, but is at least competent?

            1. Who in the hell knows what it means to be competent when it comes to running the US Govt?

              1. Oh, and to mangle a famous line from a judge, ‘Competence? I know it when I don’t see it.’

            2. The first sign, the candidate doesn’t want the job. So we write him in.

              The second sign is his first action as president. If he fires himself, we have a real keeper.

        2. Go ahead and start running.

          Its sad, but we just aren’t going to do much better than a “pragmatic” neoliberal democrat.

  19. Of course nobody is surprised that you agree, Jesse. It would be a big surprise if you ever caome acoss something that makes you change your mind about one the central dogmas. Wake us up when that happens.

    1. Oh, and go suck Ron Pual’s cock! I’m NEVER going to post on this sight again! Again!

    2. It would be a big surprise if you ever caome [sic] acoss [sic] something that makes you change your mind about one the [sic] central dogmas.

      Do you have an actual “central dogma” in mind here, Max? Or are you just repeating your lines on autopilot?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.