« Good Help Is Hard To Find | Main | Do I dare to eat an impeach? »

No mas?

By Owen Paine on Wednesday July 18, 2007 01:39 PM

I read recently, somewhere, a poll outfit claiming that its scientific sampling indicated a doubling in the numbers of dembo baseniks registering their disapproval and disgust with their party's congo record since the reversal of fortunes last november -- this in just the last couple of months.

Needless to note, such sour reverbs from the people might set the top donk brain bugs to high glow -- but then what can they do? Except rely on more bushwhacking and exposing more elephant plops -- i.e., work the lesser evil angle like the emergency switch on a falling elevator.

Question for a long humid summer's night:

Might we see a possible breakout by hunks of baesniks? Can Cindy S with her cry, "no mas, you cloven-hooved people-fuckers," really spark a collapse of the charade? Can she, with us in tow, bring down that smirking temple of popular mirage upon the heads of the "party" faithful and faithless alike?

This at least I predict with Old Testament vigor: if the party railroads St Hill to the nom, a big bolt will follow.

At least, I'll sure as hell pray to Tinker Belle for it, on even Sundays.

Comments (6)


People advised Cindy Sheehan to have an exit strategy for her activism back when she started - a concrete stopping point, where she could retreat in good order and live to fight again another day. She merely waved cheerily in their direction, as if she was the only one in the history of America who ever understood what it was like to go out on a limb. Now she's stuck out there. Which is basically what her utterly non-factor presidential "run" is about. I feel genuinely sorry for her. She's not going to spark any revolts because people can sense she's exhausted and used-up and in no condition to be even the figurehead of a movement, much less an actual leader. It happens to a lot of people who get swept up in passion-driven activism.

If Hillary is the Dem nominee I can guarantee we will see one of the lowest voter turnouts ever. Even if she's NOT the nominee, turnout will be very low. People know Bush is getting out no matter what; people are ALREADY sick to death of the eternal campaign. Why bother? Why bother wasting one's mental/spiritual energy in yet another depressingly impotent and meaningless trip to the voting booth? I mean, voting under these circumstances is depressing. It saps one's spirit. Surely there is something more politically adept and spiritually energizing one can do with that 10 minutes. Not-voting is not about apathy, it's about refusing to let your spirit bow down to being assaulted by a big lie.

Cindy said she might run for Pelosi's seat. She has announced no presidential campaign that i'm aware of.

Hillary is the dem nominee. Obama will receive a cabinet post for his services.

Democrats, pwoggie and non, will troop out to the polls to vote for her. They demonstrated their complete subservience to the party elites in '04 and there is no reason to think they will do anything else.

Bill O'Connor:

I believe that there are more than enough lefty "scorched earthers" out there to vote(and campaign) to defeat Hillary, regardless of who wins. I know I will.


There is NOTHING nothing that could induce me to vote for Hillary (or Obama or Edwards, for that matter). Taking the "Leninist" position (which Scruggs has properly chided me for) maybe it does need to get worse first. That's why I remain a Brownback man, myself!

Even though the real Decider class will skate through any upheavel short of catclysmic fall of cvillization levels untouched and still in charge.


Brian wrote:

the real Decider class will skate through any upheaval short of cataclysmic fall of civilization levels untouched and still in charge.
True enough. Meaning no disrespect at all to the cataclysm -- which I still, though less confidently, hope that I'll live to see -- there are situations short of cataclysm that at least adjust the balance of power, and extract some real concessions from what Brian calls the Decider Class. We've seen, what, three of these conjunctures in the last 120 years.

That's the real, substantive Lesser Evil -- a Lesser Evil that's really noticeably Lesser. It's not the full-Monty cataclysm, to be sure, but it would be fun. I remember the last one -- the least of the three, in fact -- and that was a hoot, let me tell you.

But of course voting or working for, or hoping in, a Democrat, just defers both the cataclysm and the adjustment.


President, Congress, what difference does it make...

The Decider class may be in control, but they are barren.

As for Hillary... as a woman, I'll be impressed with a female president when she's not the wife, widow, sister or other blood/marriage relative of a former leader. Of course, we've been force-fed the "Hillary is so smart" drivel for so long that it will be cathartic to have her actually be in the White House and be proven to be, in the end, the painfully ordinary political figure that she is.

Hate to say it but the only time women or minorities are allowed to drive the car is when it's no longer the car to be seen driving.

Post a comment

Note also that comments with three or more links may be held for "moderation" -- a strange term to apply to the ghost in this blog's machine. Seems to be a hard-coded limitation of the blog software, unfortunately.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on Wednesday July 18, 2007 01:39 PM.

The previous post in this blog was Good Help Is Hard To Find.

The next post in this blog is Do I dare to eat an impeach?.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Creative Commons License

This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.31