Strange Endorsements

In what universe does the Salt Lake Tribune endorse President Obama while The Tennessean endorses Mitt Romney?

Seriously, WTF, Tennessean?

Explaining its endorsement, the Salt Lake Tribune editorial board writes in a piece headlined “Too Many Mitts”:

Sadly, it is not the only Romney, as his campaign for the White House has made abundantly clear, first in his servile courtship of the tea party in order to win the nomination, and now as the party’s shape-shifting nominee. From his embrace of the party’s radical right wing, to subsequent portrayals of himself as a moderate champion of the middle class, Romney has raised the most frequently asked question of the campaign: “Who is this guy, really, and what in the world does he truly believe?”

The evidence suggests no clear answer, or at least one that would survive Romney’s next speech or sound bite. Politicians routinely tailor their words to suit an audience. Romney, though, is shameless, lavishing vastly diverse audiences with words, any words, they would trade their votes to hear.

Ouch. Ironically, that’s pretty much the gist of the Tennessean‘s piece, too. The editors write:

Romney has famously flip-flopped on abortion rights, the need for Planned Parenthood, access to contraceptives and health care reform in general, which disproportionately affects single mothers and lower-income women. During his bruising primary campaign he veered to the right; in the debates, he has swung back to his moderate stances as governor of Massachusetts.

The Romney who was governor reflected the attitudes shared by a majority of Americans; this is where he should stay, if elected, and resist pressure from the “tea-vangelicals” in his party who want to take this country back to the repressed 1950s.

Again, WTF? Both editorial boards see Romney as a shameless political opportunist, yet they come to different conclusions. Why is that? I think The Tennessean‘s final sentence speaks volumes:

Be the man who governed Massachusetts, and you’ll reunite America.

Oh. Right, the guy who governed a strongly Democratic state with a strongly Democratic legislature. You think he’s going to show up when it’s time to move in to the White House? With the Tea Party and John Birchers controlling the Republican Party and Fox News and Drudge controlling the news cycle and the Koch boys controlling the purse strings? You guys seriously think there’s going to be a return to reason in this country? That “moderate Massachusetts Mitt” is who you’re gonna get? Really? That is some magical thinking right there.

This is what’s wrong with newspapers like The Tennessean and the mainstream media in general. They’re so completely, hilariously out of touch. Sure, we’d all love to go back to the days when Tip O’Neill had drinks with Ronald Reagan and everyone was nice and civil to each other and people didn’t draw Hitler mustaches on the president’s picture. But news flash: those days are gone and they won’t be back. Also, there is no Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny is a fraud.


So, to the folks who sit on The Tennessean editorial board, I have a news flash for you: There will be no reuniting of America, not under a Republican president or a Democratic one! Why? Because the failure is not in our leaders but our institutions. Until that is fixed, the foot-dragging and fillibustering and recalcitrance will continue.

Our government is corrupted by money — the “politico-industrial complex” I wrote about last week. These people need our country divided for their game to work. The money comes from flooding everyone’s inbox with hysterical e-mails about how that Scary Mooslim Kenyan Usurper Obama is going to ban Jesus and force abortions on teenage virgins while handing the White House over to the United Nations. That’s where the money is, and companies like Gannett are profiting from it because someone needs to broadcast the scary-voiced announcer dude spreading all of those lies about the candidates.

I mean, come on. These editorial boards are supposed to be filled with smart people. I can’t believe it takes a dang housewife in suburban Nashville to explain how the world works to these folks. Talk about your institutional failures!

And since I’m on the topic, let me point out that our weak-kneed, bottom-line-conscious media helped create this scenario in the first place. The Tennessean is the paper which opened its editorial pages to crackpots and crazies, because they wanted to present “both sides of the issue” (even though some issues really have only one side). They’re the ones who opened their editorial pages to professional astroturfers and corporate shills – repeatedly. It’s not like there’s much credibility left over there, anyway.

You guys mainstreamed the crazy. You gave it a microphone and normalized it. This partisan rancor is as much the media’s fault as anyone’s. Don’t whine about how the country needs to be “reunited” and we need a “return to civility.” For that to happen we need a grown-up to admit that one of our political parties is barking mad. The media had its chance to serve as truth arbiter but that ship sailed when they let “death panels” and “a bureaucrat coming between you and your doctor” substitute for factual policy discussions during the healthcare “debate.”

So don’t cry for me, Argentina. And by all means, don’t tell me Mitt Romney is the guy who’s gonna fix this mess. The very fact that The Tennessean would suggest Multiple Choice Mitt as the solution to this problem it created tells me everything I need to know about our dying newspaper industry.


Filed under 2012 presidential election, Media, Nashville, Tennessee

58 responses to “Strange Endorsements

  1. SFAW

    ” one of our political parties is barking mad.”

    Both sides do it.

    • CB

      Child, please. In order to find the kind of balderdash spewed by the rwnjs in the mainstream media, you have to wade deep into the blogosphere of the fringe. This is a tired, worn-out position that doesn’t even rate the distinction of being an argument.

      • SFAW

        So instead of refuting my argument, you resort to ad hominem (“Child”) and hand-waving (“doesn’t even rate”).

        I refute you thus: Michael Moore is fat. Al Gore, too.

    • SFAW –
      False equivalence.
      There is nothing comparable to the Tea Party on the Democratic side. Democratic candidates do not go into debates and tell literally dozens of bare-faced lies, some of which repudiate the very planks of their own platforms. Democratic candidates to not play can-you-out-crazy-this pandering to an extremist base during primary season then tack to fundamentally opposite positions when preparing for the general. Democrats do not attempt to hold diametrically opposed positions on important issues with a span of a few days. Democrats do not take positions that defy mathematics and logic. Democrats don’t travel to our ally’s counties and insult them n their own soil. Democrats don’t engage in stupid and factually incorrect criticisms of our diplomatic personnel – while they are under attack.

      Refute me that.

      • Biggest difference is that Republican politicians pander to the Tea Party where as Democratic politicians throw progressives under the bus every time. When running for office, Republicans feel the need to prove they are “true conservatives” and go all Tenther and Birther as proof of their fitness for office. Democrats, on the other hand, prove their fitness for office by running as far away from progressive positions as fast as they can.

        It’s very weird. But “both sides do it?” Maybe in an alternate universe. I wish progressives were pandered to as the GOP panders to the Tea Party. Maybe we would haven’t those faux Democrats Mark mentioned in his earlier comment, the ones who think the key to getting elected is to be a milder shade of Republican.


      • SFAW

        JazzBumpa –
        As I said before, Michael Moore is fat.

        In addition, I’m not sure you have the credenza to comment authoritatively on this stuff. Perhaps if you mailed them to SB or me.

        Consider yourself refuted. Also, too.

      • SFAW

        SB –
        I know you comment at BJ a lot, do you ever read anyone else’s comments there?
        Maybe if I changed my nom to “Latergrunt” or “SFAW Delenda Est” or something. Also, too.

      • I have no idea what this sentence means. Just saying.

      • SFAW

        Which sentence? There were three. (Well, two if you don’t count the “Also, too.”)

        But the comment itself meant: I have enough history at Balloon Juice (which is where the link to this post was found, hoodathunkit), that a diligent student might appreciate the “Both sides do it” in the spirit in which it was given.

      • OH yes, well I suspected your “both sides do it” comment might be sarcasm, but not everyone over here knows you, and then all of course all hell broke loose. Always best to be safe and use the “/sarcasm” delineator.


      • SFAW

        “Always best to be safe and use the “/sarcasm” delineator.”

        Well, where’s the sport in THAT?

  2. Ray Heyd

    You are right on! This is the best post I’ve read in a long time.

  3. Bravo. I was so mad (and still am) when I read this poorly reasoned and badly written convoluted nonsense I could have spit nails. I’m sharing everywhere I can. Lordy!

  4. fancycwabs

    The Tennessean doesn’t actually care who wins–the care about pageviews, and craft their editorial policy to maximize those. To that end, a Romney endorsement for the most banal reasons possible would be the proper course of action.

  5. Mary L. Wilson

    Thanks, SB, you made my Saturday a joy. Here in Knoxville, our daily, also bought and paid for by the Haslam dynasty, for the first time in its history, did not have the guts to endorse the pandering Slug, Romney. So while it endorsed ALL area local State and other National seat fillers, it claims it ‘will not for the first time in its history, endorse a presidential candidate’. Further, it claimed that the ‘other party’ has no viable candidates. It has barely covered the local GOP/TEA scandals HERE…the County Mayor and his ‘mismanaging his campaign fund account, the Duncan dynasty where the youngest, our County Trustee ‘mis-spend’ county dollars with little apology when caught and little punishment was given.
    Further, it has BARELY mentioned the State-wide TEAs and their ‘ethical failures’ while NOT serving Tennessee…Stacey Campfield and his total sexual ignorance…about how one would ‘catch’ AIDS, hatred of gay teens and women…or Curry Todd and his paid for Seat in Nashville, promoting the ‘Guns in Bars’ bill and then being arrested for drunk driving WITH a loaded gun in said truck. Yep, the Tennessean used to be a reputable fair producer of accurate and objective journalism. But this endorsement will encourage more Tennesseans to vote for our President, knowing that the Haslams truly own this Editorial Board, as it also owns the Knoxville News Sentinel…sad but oh, so true.

  6. Ivan Ivanovich Renko

    Fuck it, Jake. It’s Tennessee The Confederacy.

    • SFAW

      Stars’n’Bars, baby.

      Where you been? Long time no read!

      • Ivan Ivanovich Renko

        Been so damn pissed I have a hard talking about southern white men without snarling. I have decades of hate for those fuckers, no lie.

      • SFAW

        Since I can’t reply directly to your note below, for some reason:
        I’m with you on that. I often wish they’d secede, and let the real Americans get back to working on the country. Fortunately, my daughter is a chip off the old blockhead. Unfortunately, she’ll have to live with it for a long time.

      • SFAW

        Oh, apparently I can reply, just not directly. No brain, no pain.

  7. This absolutely on point. thank you

  8. Anne Myers

    Thanks for expressing what many of us feel about ‘The Tennessean’s’ endorsement. It makes no sense, they have no shame, and there will be no subscription from me. KNS is on my hit list for dropping a subscription as well – cowards that they’ve become.

  9. While I totally agree with SB’s assessment of the Tennessean and the media as a whole, I will be very curious to see who other Gannett papers endorse. This was so bizarre, convoluted and badly written, even by Tennessean standards, that I couldn’t help but think while reading it that the orders came from on high. I got the feeling that whoever wrote it was drowning himself in a quart bottle of Jack Daniels and was choking on every word of it. I’m so tempted to put up a link to this on their website.

  10. Mark Rogers

    It is incredibly amusing to see all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the Tennessean’s endorsement. Talk about ingratitude. For decades the Tennessean has carried the water of the TN Democratic Party by offering biased, if not outright dishonest, coverage of news in Nashville and across the state. The litany of the Tennessean’s crimes against journalism reads like the charges that would have faced Goebbels at Nuremberg, just on a smaller and more petty scale.

    It is a measure of the intolerance of some on the left that they will brook no dissent, no consideration of other perspectives, no recognition of years of loyal service as the mouthpiece for even the most corrupt politicians or failed policies in defense of the Democratic Establishment. Rather than tell Truth to Power, the Tennessean faithfully bent over at took it for Power.

    The reality was that when Nashville and Tennessee were one-party operations, it was money, not ideology, that most heavily weighted the Tennessean’s political agenda. But times have changed. The old Yellow Dog Democrats have died, or worse, become economically unimportant to Gannett.

    To survive the Tennessean’s money men realize that the future is suburban and digital. The immigrant digital subscribers in Williamson and Rutherford and Wilson and Sumner Counties and all their dollars are the life blood of the Tennessean, not the over-65 blue collar native Nashvillians.

    And those people are… wait for it… conservatives and Republicans. The Democratic Parties in ll those counties are pretty much powerless by-standers. If there is one Democratic state legislator left in those four counties on the day after the November elections, it will be a miracle.

    Since there are more people in those counties than in Nashville, and with higher average incomes, is it surprising that the Tennessean recognizes that it is time to ‘meet the new boss, not the same as the old boss?’

    In other words, the Tennessean is simply doing what it always did, appeal to the market. It is most ungenerous of Democrats to ignore all those years of faithful service because they can no longer help the Tennessean.

  11. Mark Rogers

    Ivan Ivanovich Renko,

    You are wrong. Tennessee’s move to the Republican Party has nothing to do with the Confederacy. That myth has been debunked more times than Paul Krugman’s economic delusions.

    Here is the proof.

    Look at a Tennessee map showing population change over the last 30 – 40 years. The counties where population has increased by the highest percentages will correlate with the counties with the youngest populations, the best educated populations and the populations with the larges numbers of people who moved here from other states.

    The top performers for population growth and these other factors are Williamson, Rutherford, Wilson, Sumner, Montgomery, Robertson, Maury, Bradley and a couple of others. In every one of these counties there is another key reality. Republicans have flipped these counties from blue to red.

    30 years ago there were almost no Republican state Senators and House members in the collar counties around Nashville. Today there is one State Senator, Tim Barnes in Montgomery and Cheatham and one house member in Rutherford who are Democrats. There are no Democratic legislators in Robertson, Sumner, Wilson and Williamson.

    That was not the result of disgruntled klansmen switching parties. The klan voters are still bitter about Reconstruction and remain, at least nominally, Democrats. No, Tennessee has gone Republican because of the influx of outsiders who have no connection to the ‘Lost Cause’ but prefer the Republican message to the Democratic message.

    The demographics and the voting prove my point.

    And, by the way, another example of my argument is that Democratic state house candidate Bo Mitchell, District 50 in Nashville, refuses to say he supports Barack Obama. Even Pith in the Wind noted Mitchell’s efforts to avoid using the President’s name. Why do you think that a Democratic candidate would deny his Party’s leader in a district heavy with older life-long white Democrats? Because he is trying to win over racist Republicans? No. Mitchell is demonstrating his view of traditional white Democrats in Tennessee, not appealing to Republicans.

    • …. another example of my argument is that Democratic state house candidate Bo Mitchell, District 50 in Nashville, refuses to say he supports Barack Obama

      Meh that’s just an example of Tennessee Democrats being spineless, weak DINOs and GOP-lite. I kinda remember Lincoln Davis being that way too, and as a result we got stuck with that Scott DesJarlais guy. This is nothing new, Democrats in Red States thinking the secret to winning an election is to pretend to be a slightly less crazy Republican. It’s stupid; people can spot a phony a mile off. They’ll vote for the real Republican over the fake one every time. I’ve written countless posts about it.

  12. The Tennessean is strongly Liberal.
    Mitt Romney is strongly Liberal.

    Still cannot figure out the SLT endorsing Obama. Figured they would endorse a Mormon no matter what. Must be a liberal rag out there.

  13. Bernard

    the media are in it to make a profit. business is after money. with the last 40 years of propaganda and the Democrats sellling out to the Republicans, i’d be surprised any “Liberal” lol, media, much less a newspaper, would be Democratic.

    Democratic have turned tail and want in on the scam the Republicans have engineered. scaring white people has been working for the last 30 40 years in teh Deep South.
    thank George Wallace and Lee Atwater and Sir Ronald Reagan for making the initial turn of White Southern Democrats into White Southern Republicans. Follow the money as always.

    to think any media, much less a southern newspaper in a Redneck/Southern state, would dare endorse a Democrat is ludicrous. a dying breed. the winds of change have been long and complete in the Confederacy. that War of Nothern Aggression has finally been turned into a complete Southern Victory. the same people are getting screwed as before Reconstruction.

    when was the last time a Southern State voted Blue? lol.
    the South shall rise again has always been the rallying cry of the angry white southerner. payback time folks.

    stupidity nonetheless for the whites who are voting Republican, but payback for helping the Blacks/Other is what voting Republican is all about now. not a single thought about what Republicans have been doing the white folks down here, though. as their Bible says, Pride goeth before a fall.

  14. Well, well. You have an entirely new crop of commenters, don’t you, dear?

    Neither one will accomplish a tinker’s dam worth of change or progress in any direction. It takes too many of either party to break the 60% threshold and neither one has it. That means four more years of whiny rich white guys who can’t agree on anything except crap that only benefits themselves and people like them.

    When we had two papers, it was ok for one to support the Democrats and one the republicans but the Banner died for lack of sufficient readers and the after the Tennessean got bought out it turned to a policy of trying to please everybody in the hopes that they would subscribe. They ade it bland and people spit it out. Two decades ago, of the Tennessean came out in favor of one candidate over another, even in a local judge race, the one they supported would win because of the paper’s support. No longer. You cal it fish wrap, but people in the south don’t wrap fish in it, they use it in the bottoms of their chicken coops because it’s easy to gather up the crap with it really well. That’s not much change from reading it.
    The system’s not really broken, but as long as people choose sides, draw lines in the sand and refuse to budge, nothing will happen.

  15. Unintentional (but possibly Freudian) lack of capitalizing Republican.

  16. Honey, do we have a binder I can put a smart woman in? I found one here.

  17. Mark Rogers


    What evidence do you have for your conclusions? Have you studied the demographics of the areas in the South that are electing Republicans to state and local offices? Have you spent any time with Southern voters?

    Do you know anything about the recent history of politics and government in the states of the South?

    Or do you read Daily Kos and the Nation and lap up their equally skewed propaganda? Here is the most important fact about American politics that you will never learn from MSNBC or Fox or the Nation or the Weekly

    The majority of the American People would happily see all the political extremists on both sides put into a bottle and dropped in the Gulf Stream and floated to Europe. If people would get off their lazy asses and run the fanatics and the hustlers out of politics, we could have a 70% majority to work on realistic solutions to our national problems. But as long as extremists try to destroy the room for compromise in order to preserve their power, it won’t happen.

    I don’t blame the extremists. Some don’t know any better and others are not worth saving. But the idea that both sides are not in the thrall of such extremists is simply not true. And as long as the extremists can destroy the moderates, we will be unable to change.

    Now go do some research before you discuss things about which you know nothing… like Southern politics. Your arguments are demonstrably without any factual basis.

  18. democommie

    “…. another example of my argument is that Democratic state house candidate Bo Mitchell, District 50 in Nashville, refuses to say he supports Barack Obama.”

    As opposed to the mindless, lockstep orthodoxy of the GOP at both federal and state level on almost every issue.

    GOP. Greed. Obstructionism.Paranoia. Great family values, if you’re the Manson Family.

  19. Dear Mr Rogers,

    You write to Mr. Renko:

    “The counties where population has increased by the highest percentages will correlate with the counties with the youngest populations, the best educated populations and the populations with the larges numbers of people who moved here from other states.”
    Could a reader of this post thusly conclude that there are no young, well educated people of color available to participate in this migration? At the least the demographics are rather intriguing. As an example, Williamson County.
    ” As of the census[11] of 2010, there were 183,182 people. In 2000 there were 44,725 households, and 35,780 families residing in the county. The population density was 217 per square mile (84 /km2). There were 47,005 housing units at an average density of 81 per square mile (31 /km2). The racial makeup of the county was 91.55% White, 5.18% Black or African American, 0.20% Native American, 1.25% Asian, 0.03% Pacific Islander, 0.97% from other races, and 0.82% from two or more races. 2.52% of the population were Hispanics or Latinos of any race.”

    • Mark Rogers

      Randy, come down to Williamson County sometime and you will see educated immigrant minorities. Some even participate in the Republican Party.

      It seems likely that many educated immigrant minorities prefer Davidson County because of the higher % of fellow minority members.

      Unless Davidson County improves its schools and overall government in the next decade, there will be more educated professionals of all races abandoning Nashville for a better quality of life and better schools for their children.

  20. democommie

    “But the idea that both sides are not in the thrall of such extremists is simply not true.”

    That statement is a baldfaced lie. You know fucking well that it is a lie and yet you persist in trying to create a fiction that you are somehow, “moderate” in your own views. You’re nothing but a garden variety troll, Mr. Rogers.

    • I won’t deny that the Left does not have its extremists. But the idea that the Democratic Party is in thrall of these extremists? Laughable. The thing is, the Democratic Party does not have extremists. The Left does, but those people were purged out of the party long ago. That’s why we have so many people in the thrall of Ralph Nader and Jill Stein.

      But “both sides do it” is the last refuge of a political movement desperately trying to not look batshit crazy.

      • SFAW

        Much as I hate Nader, I hardly think his supporters could be classified as “extremists.” Left-er than most Democrats, maybe; naive almost certainly. But extremism is a different kettle of frogs from your average Nader-supporter’s belief set. Unless the Overton window has moved so far that Bernie Sanders is now considered a right-winger.

      • Much as I hate Nader, I hardly think his supporters could be classified as “extremists.”

        Exactly, that’s my point. There really is no equivalence.

      • Mark Rogers


        The fact that you are so exorcised by the Tennessean endorsing Romney, who could never be confused with a right wing ideologue, tends to make my point. Romney is the most Clintonian candidate we have seen since Bill left office. You ought to be thrilled {or at least relieved} that however the election comes out, the next POTUS will not be a right winger.

        And you can tell me all about how non-extreme the Democrats are when a pro-life Democrat gets to speak at their convention. There are, you know, millions of Democrats who oppose some, if not all, abortions, but still vote Democratic for other reasons. Yet their views are prohibited at Democratic conventions.

      • Romney is the most Clintonian candidate we have seen since Bill left office.

        Really? Which guy are you talking about here, the guy that tried to run to the right of Rick Perry in the GOP primary, who called himself “severely conservative” and wants immigrants to “self deport,” or the guy who was governor of Massachusetts with a Democratic legislature holding him in check?

        Seriously, Mark. Multiple Choice Mitt has taken every position imaginable. It really boggles the mind that anyone could call him ANYTHING save a hypocrite. What we can judge him by is what he’s DONE. Actions. And this is a guy who protested FOR the Vietnam War draft while serving his time in a French chalet with a private chef. Wars of for the little people!

        He’s a guy who personally made millions off of the auto bailout he now says was a horrible idea. He’s a vulture capitalist who made his fortune bankrupting companies and outsourcing American jobs to China, where he personally witnessed human rights abuses in his factories, but chose to believe the absurd fable that workers were perfectly happy being treated like slaves. He won’t reveal his tax returns but he jokes about the GOP’s insulting demands that Obama show his birth certificate.

        C’mon, Mark. Next you’re going to tell me that Obama is a communist Fascist socialist. And all of your pretense about being a “moderate” flies out the window. The Overton Window.

        And you can tell me all about how non-extreme the Democrats are when a pro-life Democrat gets to speak at their convention.

        Did Joe Biden not speak at the convention? I must have missed that. Unless by “pro life” you mean “anti-abortion.” Which are not the same thing so please check you terminology. There are tons of pro life Democrats out there, they just don’t think banning abortion is a pro life position. They think preventing unwanted pregnancy and helping women economically so they choose to keep their babies is more pro life than forcing women into back alleys and other life-threatening acts of desperation. But potayto, potahto.

        And also, I guess you were asleep during the whole healthcare debate when we got the Stupak Amendment. Which, last I checked, passed with a lot of Democratic votes. So yes, PLEASE tell me how oppressed the pro-life Democrats are.

        { eye roll }

      • SFAW

        SB –
        The “no pro-life at the DNC” meme is the bullshit Bob Casey zombie lie – from, what, 1992? – repackaged/repurposed for your consumption.

      • Yes, but what he meant was “people who think like Republicans on this issue,” which is what they ALWAYS mean when they trot out ideas like “bipartisan” and “reaching across the aisle” and “compromise,” etc. etc. The fact that Democrats disagree with Republicans on issues like abortion should not be a shock to anyone — this is why we have two parties! Viva la difference! But no, the Republican definition of “bipartisan” is “do exactly what Republicans tell you to do.”

    • Mark Rogers


      You persist in seeing this issue as if it could be limited to the last few years. If that were true, then you would have a better case. But our current political climate is part of a long process which is greatly responsible for the present.

      Looked at over the last 50 or so years, both the Democratic and Republican Parties have moved far to the left and right from where they were in the 1950s or 60s or even the early 70s.

      You can call me whatever you want but the reality is that the extremists on both sides have made it harder and harder for those of us who want to work in a bi-partisan manner to do so.

      Read the comments here closely. No one seems to have objected to the Tennessean’s biased coverage when it helped Democrats but let the paper endorse one Republican and the witch hunt begins.

      In that context, don’t dare to presume to insult my credibility. At least not unless you buy the first scotch.

      • SFAW

        See, now you’re not even trying. The Dems have moved “far to the left”? Only in the fevered dreams of Robert Welch, Newt Gingrich, and the Koch brothers.

        As SB said, there are no Dem extremists, except in the eyes of the deluded, such as yourself. However, there are shitloads of Republican extremists, and the only question is will they ever find something TOO crazy, TOO extreme, to back away from it. Hasn’t happened yet, probably won’t for a few years at best.

        You concern trolling, “bipartisanship uber alles” morons are part of the problem. One of my hopes/wishes is that when all the right wingers move to Tejas, and secede to form “Dumbfuckistan,” that they take you clowns with them. Of course, I also wish I were 20 again.

      • SFAW

        And I would NEVER insult your credulity. There are few here more credulous than you.

        (Yes, I know your outrage was directed at democommie – as opposed to “DeMMo” – but this was begging to be responded to.)

  21. ThresherK

    Whoever wrote in The Tennessean “Be the man who governed MA for a term, disinterestedly” should not be making any decisions about dating and marriage for awhile.

    I mean, I am not making a lifelong emotional committment to one person when I enter the voting booth. But the ignorance required to overlook how MittTheGovernor was ridden hard by an overwhelming majority-Dem lege, and he had ~700 vetoes overturned is incredible.

    If that’s what the Tennessean thinks will happen, those folks are delusional. And it sounds like any number of Southern gothic novels where the wife tries to paper over, to all the kids and neighbors and extended family, the alcoholic wife-beater she’s married to.

    • A few people have observed that you could practically see the gun to the editorial board’s head when they wrote this. I can’t help but feel there’s more to the story.

      • ThresherK

        “Putting makeup on the bruises” it is, then.

        But don’t worry, Tennessean: Unlike every beaten spouse out there, at some point you do deserve what you get for staying in this relationship.

  22. Mark Rogers


    That is what I meant when I said that Romney is the most ‘Clintonian’ candidate since Bill Clinton. The fact is that Clinton was a very good President precisely because he was willing to drop promises and switch positions in order to get the results he wanted.

    And for the record, I have never accused the President of being a communist or a fascist or an alien.

    So here I am praising Clinton and you are complaining about my partisanship. Meanwhile, what did Clinton do to limit all those evils you attribute to Bain?

    To refresh your memory, Clinton was a staunch advocate for economic policies that included globalization of our economy, free trade zones and deregulation of major sectors of the economy. I remember Al Gore on tv praising ‘leaders like Rush Limbaugh’ for supporting the President against Ross Perot {whom liberals like you owe a HUGE apology since he was making your case 20 years ago only to be demonized by the Democrats}.

    Put differently, Bain benefited from Clinton more than Clinton from Bain.

    And where was Clinton on the idea of regulating hedge funds? Signing the cured bill.

    The problem here is that you want to blame Republicans for everything when Democrats bear substantial responsibility too. The problem isn’t my partisanship, it is yours because you cannot bear to accept responsibility when your side is wrong.

    • That is what I meant when I said that Romney is the most ‘Clintonian’ candidate since Bill Clinton. The fact is that Clinton was a very good President precisely because he was willing to drop promises and switch positions in order to get the results he wanted.

      Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha………..

      Okay I see what you did there. Mitt isn’t a hypocrite or flip-flopper, he’s results oriented!

      Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ……….. { gasps } ha ha ha ha ha ………..

      Okay, yeah, that’s sorta factually challenged and all but whatever.

      • Mark Rogers

        I would prefer ‘flexible’ or ‘slithery’ but if you prefer “results oriented” I won’t quibble.

        But just for fun, what about Clinton is so superior to Romney?

        Didn’t Clinton champion the exact economic policies you blame Romney for employing? Who is more responsible? The loan shark or the Godfather who enables him?

        Didn’t Clinton sign a welfare reform bill that children’s advocates called ‘disastrous’ and ‘cruel?’

        Using your own standards, Clinton is responsible for far more suffering that Romney has been or could be if we elected him Lord Protector for Life.

      • SFAW

        What policies, exactly, is Romney “employing”? Outside of tax-cuts-for-everybody-but-not-so-fast!-middle-class, Romney has “adopted” just about every permutation of every economic policy the Rethugs and Blue Dogs and some lefties have propounded in the last 20 years or so. Of course, “just about” seems NOT to include one of the things that got Clinton vilified by the Rethugs – an increase in marginal tax rates.

        Clinton, although he frustrated many liberals, was never viewed as a liberal by anyone except Limbaugh and his ilk. The various things you mentioned – global trade, dereg, etc. – were disliked by liberals, but they also didn’t think that Clinton came to office saying/implying he’d be the next FDR.

        Romney is a whore, plain and simple. I used to think McCain was the biggest whore on the right side of the aisle, but Romney has him beat by a mile or 10. There’s a significant difference between triangulation (as practiced by Clinton), and Romney’s “what lies do I have to tell today to ensure that I’ll get enough votes to beat Obama?” On (probably) every issue of importance in this election, Romney has lied. The only uncertainty is: is he lying when he espouses a right-wing talking point, or when he espouses a non-right-wing talking point? Given his history, the likelihood that his “centrist” positions are lies is much greater than the other way around. The only way I would be proved wrong (in all probability) would be if the Dems ended up with 60+ Senators, and 230+ Reps. Since neither of those is especially likely, I’m pretty sure he’d govern from the far right, if he wins.

  23. democommie

    “You persist in seeing this issue as if it could be limited to the last few years. If that were true, then you would have a better case. But our current political climate is part of a long process which is greatly responsible for the present.”

    Bullshit. You persist in telling lies about a non-existent eqivalence between the reiKKKwing of the GOP (which is most of the party at this point) and the birkenstockweain’, communedwellin’, hairly-legged bra burners of the left.

    The DNC has not been “in thrall” to the fucking hippies, the panthers, the welfare queens or any other :”lefty fringe” demographic. Not in the last four years or the last four decades.

    “You can call me whatever you want…”

    For that I do not require your permission.

    “…but the reality is that the extremists on both sides have made it harder and harder for those of us who want to work in a bi-partisan manner to do so.

    Again, bullshit. If you’re going to tell lies and not offer some very compelling evidence to make them appear–if only to other idiots like yourself–to be the truth, then you’re just lying and you’re not fooling anyone but yourself.

  24. deep

    Jeez Beale, you post on the weekend and look what happens! 48 Comments. Time to start monetizing this shit. 😉

    • Time to start monetizing this shit.

      No joke. I had a tip jar when I was at Blogger, but don’t think I ever got one donation. When I moved to WordPress I just didn’t bother.

      • deep

        psh! Do you think Mark or Usagi will be giving you cash? Better to get cash out of them involuntarily like one of those “Do you think Obama is the Antichrist? YES/NO” ads that they’ll feel compelled to click on.