Don't Be Stupid

I'm tired.

I'm tired of ideologues who insist on absolutely no compromise when it comes to our President. They either have no idea how the world works, or they are so high and mighty/holier than thou, they could care less about reality. They are no better than Grover Norquist tax pledge signing Republicans. And I'm tired of hearing from fellow Democrats or liberals or progressives, PUMAs or whatever they want to call themselves, saying that they're soooo discouraged by President Obama that they're going to show him come November by staying home or refusing to vote for the President. Yeah, that'll show 'em.

They'd rather cut their ideological noses off their idiotic faces and let Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney win the election, than cast a vote for someone who's apparently been such a disappointment in their eyes. You know, because under a Republican president, we would have repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell; because under a Republican president, we would have managed to pass the start of a universal health care system that previous presidents have tried and failed to enact over the last hundred years; because under a Republican president, we would have gotten a law in place protecting pay discrimination toward women in the workplace; because under a Republican president, we would still be in our 29 straight month of private sector job growth after shedding over 800,000 jobs a month by the end of the previous administration.

I could go on, but you get my point. Despite certain disappointments in an ideological fantasy world some of us would love to live in, the fact of the matter is that President Obama has been more successful in pushing a center/left agenda than any previous Democratic president.

I had been thinking about this for a while now and lo and behold, my co-blogger Jennifer, was on the same page and hit the nail on the head with a Facebook update today.

It's been a long time since I've invited people to unfriend me. But if you're a Democrat who would even consider not voting in the Presidential election because you're disappointed in Obama, then you're a disappointment to me and I don't want your energy around here. So, you can unfriend me. It's called time-management.

Unfortunately, someone didn't think her statement through and commented:

Don't forget the importance of listening to opposing/different opinions to avoid being in a self-reinforcing bubble.

Jennifer's response:

I reject the suggestion that I don't listen to opposing/different opinions. I reject the implication that I am in a bubble. Believe me, I hear/read opposing views as much or MORE than I hear agreement. What I clearly stated above is my refusal to make time in my life for people who won't vote for him because of a single issue. I didn't say they have to agree with him on everything. I didn't say that they have to agree with me. I said that anyone who won't vote for him because of an issue, or who would encourage others not to vote because of a single issue, are not worth my time. It has NOTHING to do with disagreement. It has to do with being so fucking stupid as to not vote at all. I really dislike the LEAP from me saying not voting is unacceptable to me saying disagreement is unacceptable. I mean I REALLY dislike that leap. So don't fucking go there with me. 

I have more respect for Republicans who actually believe Romney would be a better choice than I do for Democrats who DON'T FUCKING VOTE! It's about the vote, not the disagreement. GOT IT?! 

And furthermore, just because I don't agree with much of the dissent and disappointment and frustration does not mean I am oblivious, to it, naive to it, in denial of it. Guess what? I can actually disagree with people, too. Just because I am more supportive of Obama doesn't mean I haven't given a great deal of thought and research to each issue. Just because I disagree with the disappointed left doesn't mean I have blocked their reasoning from my life. Just because I filter how much I discuss it does not mean I filter their perspective. I just choose not to waste my time trying to convince Democrats the value of FUCKING VOTING! 

The leap you made is equivalent to people who say gay marriage will lead to man on dog sex. It's ridiculous and unfounded and fucking insulting.

I think Jennifer was insulted.

Let's not forget that a Romney presidency would pretty much destroy the Supreme Court as we know it. Currently, we have eight justices split evenly on the scales of justice with a ninth who straddles the balance point. A spine-shuddering thought like a President Romney might tilt the Supreme Court balance to the ultra-conservative side for the next forty years. Do we really want to add to a Roberts/Scalia/Alito/Thomas style court?

Think about that before you decide to stay home on Election Day to make your fruitless point.

Another Clinton Supporting Moron For McCain...

... who tells us that Obama isn't qualified to be President because he was registered as a Muslim in a madrassa in Indonesia - something that CNN debunk a year and a half ago. Her source? A "former congressional investigator," but nyah-nyah-nyah, she's not gonna tell you who it is.

This country has gone topsy-turvy.



What an imbecile. And how does anyone expect to be taken seriously with an attitude like that? I've got to think that this is all a scheme. PUMA is not an organization of former Clinton supporters who think they were robbed of an election she lost fairly, but a core group of McCain supporters posing as Clintonites in an attempt to cast doubt in the minds of undecideds and independents. There's no other explanation for such stupidity.

And if these morons really do exist en masse, Hillary Clinton better hit it out of the park tonight, blow everyone away with a patented "clap-clap-point-point" speech and straighten these fuckers out.

UPDATE (8/27/08 1:10am):

Hey! I may have been more on point than I thought about this whole PUMA thing. From Crooks and Liars:

Chuck Todd makes an observation Monday night that many of his colleagues fail (or refuse to) acknowledge: That the influence of the PUMA crowd is greatly exaggerated, and the Republicans have their own “PUMA problem” with Ron Paul and his supporters.

“I think what’s happening is we’re in our Denver bubble. There’s 1/3 of the Democratic establishment here who would be big time players had Clinton won, and they can stoke this a little. The McCain campaign is stoking this, releasing this ad. And there is a small core group, but I think they have a louder voice than they do a volume of numbers. So, look, I think we’re gonna look back in a few days and say ‘these PUMAs are really no different than these Ron Paul folks that we’re gonna run into in St. Paul.’”

...These PUMA detractors aren’t Democrats, no matter how badly the media wants to drag this out and create these fantasy dramas. The PUMA operation is very clearly a GOP game as much as Operation Chaos:

PUMA (originally “Party Unity My A**” and now officially a more sedate “People United Means Action”) was one of the original angry Hillary groups. Started by Darragh Murphy and depending on whose story you read Will Bowers, PUMA fed on the anger over the actions of the Democratic National Committee over the Florida and Michigan delegations. The PUMA PAC website features a graphic that now says “Obama National Committee” rather than Democratic National Committee.

As Amanda at Pandagon discovered, Murphy donated money to McCain in 2000. She has never donated money to Clinton. Disenfranchised Clinton supporter? I don’t think so. And Rumproast has documented how the PUMAs have sought to make themselves sound much larger and more organized than they are. 60 of them about to take charge of the convention? Not bloody likely.