GOPers Playing Follow The Leader-Idiot.

Ok.  First Ricky Santorum  mis quotes (likely deliberately) what P. Obama said about kids being able to go to college. Most likely it was an anti elitism dog whistle, or dog bone, or pile of dog shit.

But after that, some truly more idiotic people ran with the talking point.

I could go off on specific wing nuts and/or wing nut curious people who fell for that bullshit.  (But I will only say on a certain blonde law professor's web site, that there were about 40 wing nut tea baggers  whining about P. Obama's sinister plot, before some truth teller posted the full quote from P.  Obama.  That nullifies in total Santorum's bullshit and all his defenders.)

But instead I am going to go off on the allegedly liberal Main Stream Media. 

Why do they let these douche bag politicians on their shows, and not confront them directly and forcefully  when the d-bags flat out lie, and/or set up bullshit strawman arguments?

I mean I know why.  They rather not offend, even at the cost of truth, justice, and The American Way.  So I should instead say, it infuriates me that they let a d-bag like Santorum get away with that shit.  Someone should have put Captain American Taliban Ricky Santorum in his place, and I mean as a lying assed weasel.

Anyway . . .

Palin Time Again.

Ok. Got to let you all know that Ann Althouse finally appeared in a new bloggingheads diavlog. I only got about 10 minutes in before I had to shut that shit off. Not only does she buy the cover story that what Gov. Walker is doing is necessary, she:

1) admitted not reading a particular article her opponent mentioned, and then set about the task of explaining what the article said. I shit you not. She went off on some stream of consciousness rant about the content of some article she never read.

2) She repeated that idiotic argument about how taxpayer money is still taxpayer money even after the check for a state worker gets cut. Which anyone with an I.Q. of 60 should know, that is when it becomes the worker's money. She called it a scheme. God forbid people associate with and fund people dedicated to making their lives better, fighting their fights for them and defending their rights. There is a description for that kind of scheme: Retaining Counsel. With the union you get counsel and a lobbyist all for one bargain basement low price, Professor of Law Althouse.

I did not go sequential and I did not last more than a minute or two past this point anyway. Insane shit, particularly for a law professor to say/believe.

Any the fuck way . . . let's change subjects, shall we?

Dirt from the new Palin Book. The one that may or may not ever get published.

Nothing new. Just confirms what we already know, really. Mostly. Some new crumbs, though.

I skimmed the article. The only thing new that jumped out at me was that Mrs. Palin was sock puppeting herself in the local papers with self-worshiping letters, way before the Facebook and Twitter sock puppeting.

If that is not the mark of a seriously diseased mind, what more do you need?

Edit to add: Thanks to what I read over at we are respectable negroes, I am reminded that the term I am thinking about for Mrs. Palin is "batshit crazy." That post over at respectable negroes was talking about Mrs. Palin's BFF, Michelle Bachmann. And they both are quite past it. So I say.

Some Quickies.

I'm just going to briefly mention the Scott Walker phone prank. Nope, it's not looking like this will end his term as Gov. of WI very soon. But it shows us his true colors, and intents. Lying-assed weasel.

Thought came to me (not original, I googled) that the right to collective bargaining has a double First Amendment angle. Firstly consider freedom of speech either broadly or specifically political, in the sense that public employee unions are engaging in politics, all the time, even if it is not electoral partisan politics. (I worked for AFSCME as a lawyer for two years. This I know to be true.) Government takes away collective bargaining rights, and government is basically censoring the union. (Not a great argument, but hey, it's a start.) And there's the freedom of association argument. Whether or not the union in theory can take the state to court if the bill passes, is something I can't say. I like the idea of it. Beyond that, what I am thinking, meantime, is recast the issue. It's Scott Walker trampling on the constitutional rights of citizens of the state. Ya. I like that for a talking point.

Moving on, how about this grasping at straws racism charge against what is it? Three people during one of the protest days in Madison?

That poor black tea bagger. I mean really!

He was only failing to obey police instructions by failing to stay on the Right Winger side of the fence. (Deliberate confrontation for the purpose of getting juicy footage, me thinks.) Now the allegedly racist remarks. Use of "son." Hey, I saw the tape myself. The guy using the word seemed to be using it in keeping with current colloquial, street English. And let's be clear. Son is not the same as "boy." I would have had to flag the play if he said boy. No foul. After that there is the person who said something like get back on you side of the fence. That was clearly a literal statement. No foul. The lady (not even, allegedly now it is said, part of the protest) who asked him if he had children? That was directly tied in with the conversation about teachers. Again, the point was literal and politically on point. No foul. And calling him uneducated? Shit. What do I call right wingers here? Bat shit crazy, ignorant lying-assed weasels. Again, no foul.

It never fails to amuse me, how wrong the right is when it comes to race issues. They grasp at straws, and then wonder why we call them ignorant, and clueless about these things.

Oh. And Black tea bagger man actually says MLK was a republican? Little shit really is ignorant if not uneducated.

Ok. That's enough for now.

No! It's Not Taxpayer Money. Ya Morons!

I have seen this idiotic argument from the anti-unionites, and their sympathizers. I think I saw it on Ann Althouse's site last week. And just now I saw it on instapundit, quoting from some agitprop written by one Michael Barone -- some cretin on the payroll of AEI and part of the Fox News hacks bull pen. (I refuse to link either pages, on principle.)

The argument goes like this. Since every dime made by a public sector union employee is from the taxpayers, the members' dues, which end up down stream as contributions to democratic candidates causes the taxpayers to fund Democratic politicians/parties that they might not want. And that makes it all a scam, a conflict of interest, and a fraud.

How idiotic can people be?

The second the employee's pay is moved from the credit column to the debit column at the office that does that business, the money is no longer the state's, or the taxpayers'. So is this more of a matter of people being that totally ignorant, or is this just another example of right wing crazy shit, bullshit? Could be both. But the argument is not logical, or true.

This is one of the most main of main reason I despise right wingers. They say shit like that, totally lie and bullshit, and then wonder why reality based people call them lying-assed weasels? I mean really!

I feel no need to try to be fair or nice to people who make up shit, to bolster their bullshit, agitprop demagoguery. I'll stop there, on this topic at least.

On Wisconsin

Should it surprise anyone that the budget crisis in WI is a scam?

Wisconsin's GOP Governor is an evil, lying assed weasel.

It doesn't, me. Rachel Maddow had a great bit about this yesterday. Let me link that, as well.

Link to video.

Not that union busting is something new for the evil GOP. But this might be the first time a governor has manipulated the budget and the laws of a state to bust a public union.

It is so very evil.

I just took a look over at Wisconsin's most famous blogger, Ann Althouse's page. She's big on pictures of the protesters and links to other's reporting. Make that blogging. There is a huge difference between the two. But is their anything there about how this really is about a contrived right wing attack on unions, for political and ideological reason? Nope. Not a peep about that stuff.

As painful as it might be to endure, I am hoping for her to be on bloggingheads soon. I just hope who ever they square off her will not let her get away with her own weaseling. Well that's what I am expecting, based on prior performance.


Edit to add: Yup, she got around to the story about the scam.

She seems to believe she is being fair, but to my mind she's weaseling. That's the problem with trying to be fair, in what is a very sharply polarized argument. If one can not decide what one thinks and articulate it clearly, one comes across as weaseling. This is not to say I don't believe she can't make up her mind which side she's on. I can well believe that. But in avoiding to take a side she is basically weaseling out of taking a side. Right?