Casual Observation

I love politics. But I don’t know if I can stand to watch the hordes of Malkinese wingnuts over the next year. Now that they are disempowered, they’re really not very interesting. A car wreck has more fascination.

7 Comments

Brendan Skwire on January 14, 2009 at 5:00 pm

for two reasons.
#1: My favorite part of the fairytale “Rumplestiltskin” is when the girl guesses his name and he flies into a rage, jumping up and down until he explodes. I really want to see malkin’s head explode.

#2: even disempowered, the GOP made a lot of trouble for clinton (worse when they won the majority). It’ll get interesting eventually, when they start coming up with all sorts of crazy theories about how it was really Obama who killed vince foster.

BooMan on January 14, 2009 at 5:04 pm

They don’t have much fight right now.

Brendan Skwire on January 14, 2009 at 5:04 pm

i just visited the Anchor Baby’s website, and holy crap, is that some funny stuff.

My favorite headline? “Obama Will Eat Abe Lincoln’s Food.” no lie.

Steven D on January 14, 2009 at 5:08 pm

I expect to see a great deal of longing expressed on right wing blogs for another terrorist attack on US soil while Obama is President. Oh wait, they already are.

What is Obama thinking? How could he weaken so dramatically our protections against terrorism? Doesn’t he realize that without warrantless FISA wiretaps we could never have uncovered the plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge (how could we have gotten a warrant for conversations about the bridge when we didn’t yet know that al Qaeda had it in its sights?) Has he forgotten that we only found the name of the operative who was tasked with destroying the bridge because we subjected Kahlid Mohammed, the mastermind of 9-11, to “rough” interrogation techniques? Does he really mean to leave us vulnerable to terrorist attacks? […]

I don’t agree with Obama, but all he is doing is applying the same rationale to the war on terror. Will his appointments and new procedures leave us more vulnerable to terrorist attack? Yes. Do they make another 9-11 or worse more likely? Yes. Is the president putting his strict view of constitutional requirements ahead of the safety of his constituents? Yes, again.

He won’t tell the truth, anymore than the Warren Court admitted that its new rules would increase crime. But that is precisely what he is doing and doing consciously with full knowledge of the likely consequences. In the mind of this constitutional law professor we have elected president, a strict interpretation of what the constitution permits the government to do in dealing with foreign terrorists who would attack us is more important than stopping the attacks. […]

But Obama doesn’t see it that way. We can only hope that once he comes to grips with the truly horrific consequences that will inevitably flow from his neutering of our intelligence gathering abilities that he will have a change of heart (or that we will have a change of presidents four years hence).

Steven D on January 14, 2009 at 5:17 pm

Here’s another one:

LINK

And check out this comment to that post:

I tell people that the fact that I did not vote for Obama, all I have to do is sit back, watch, chuckle, and listen to them whine, groan, and moan. It is as the only way for them to learn the real purpose of our federal government, which is to protect our country so that we can enjoy our freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to bear arms, then we need one or two attacks.

What a shame if that is the only way to teach them.

Yeah, what a shame someone finds the possibility of a terrorist attack a chance to laugh at the people who voted for Obama.
dada on January 14, 2009 at 5:27 pm

the brooklyn bridge guy?…the dude who got 20 years because he was gonna use a weapon of mass destruction:

aka: blow torch, to bring down an edifice that’s stood for 125 years?

yeah, great example that. were’s the snark tag? the entertainment value alone is emmense.