Really Stupid Liberals

One of the very first posts I ever did, way back on the eve of the 2006 mid-term elections, dealt with a liberal blogger who insisted that "Cheney" was going to "pull something" and swing the elections to the Republicans. I called it out for the crap it was.

In the intervening five years, many liberals continue to be truly, horribly stupid. Awful. Dumb. Ridiculous. Breathlessly over the top. Not least because they are almost comically partisan in their views. They are the mirror image of Republicans for whom "The Democrat Party" is the source of all evil in the world. Considering both the Congressional Democratic record as well as Pres. Obama's, one would think them disabused of the idea that either major party has the common good, the Constitution, or simple political common sense as guiding lights. For both parties, it is a cowardly desire to hedge any bets, refuse any risks that might "alienate" the only real constituency that matters - Big Money.

Having said that, I found the comments on this story at Talking Points Memo to be both really funny and really, truly, horribly stupid. Brain-dead stupid. Tragically, ignorantly, pathetically stupid.

For instance, davidasr writes in part:

I'm not sure I'd want to go back to the dark ages, or even 1929 for that matter, as they all seem to advocate.

Did you catch that? "The Dark Ages"! Whatever that might mean . . . "Even 1929"! Hello, um, we have a Democratic President who doesn't seem to grasp that we're reliving that era. We've been stuck in 1932 for the past two and a half years because our President would rather cut a deal with folks who want to see him lose an election rather than work for the betterment of the country. So, he sells his soul for a compromise. Over-the-top, stupid, blind, partisan. All in one sentence.

Ibesteve2u is so awesome, adding a touch of paranoia to the mix, that subtle dollop of political conspiracy that sees four people shooting at JFK in Dallas, and the CIA behind 9/11:

I wouldn't be thrilled with Gingrich winning the nomination - especially since I have no idea what kind of technology the right put in place between the voting machines and the central tabulating computers under the guise of the Patriot Act and with the power of Homeland Security. I don't much like the idea of a man who trumpeted orphanages as a means of reducing welfare rolls being that close to the White House.
Ain't much of a step between slapping the children of the poor into orphanages and work camps for poor adults. That is something every American who is not of the power structure of the right should be concerned about: Inequitable free trade ensures that 99% of the American people are just the desire of a CEO for a new yacht to match the fashions of the season away from becoming eligible for such camps.

Dallas attempts to serve up a reminder to "Us", name-dropping Hitler, Mussolini, Jesus, and His Mother all in the same comment, all the while complaining that it's the Democrats who never catch an even break:

Don't get too cocky. The Republicans have nominated seemingly unelectable candidates before (Reagan, Bush Lite) and gotten away with it. This time, they will use their Citizens United dirty money power to enhance their billion dollar advantage from the free 24/7 advertising on Fox and the places where the elections are either decided by Republican-made electronic vote-counting machines or by corrupt election officials (Wisconsin, Florida, several others).
If the Republicans get REALLY desperate and nominate the ghosts of Hitler and Mussolini as their ticket, they are still guaranteed 40+% of the vote. This is an advantage we do not enjoy. The Democrats could nominate a ticket of Jesus and the Virgin Mary, and we'd still never get 60% of the vote. We would be well-advised to remember that.

Firenze_30fps drags up the ghost of the millenium:

if you'd asked me in 2000 whether GW Bush could be elected president, I would have said 'no f'ing way!'
And... hey, I was right. He wasn't elected in 2000.

The award for "Best" Comment that manages to show the world that conservatives do not have a monopoly of truly awful political commentary goes to debbieqd:

It may be good for politics to have Newt as the candidate, but it is terrible for the country. This is a man who channels Hitler at every turn. Pure evil in my book. And, one can only sit and wonder how so many Americans could be that stupid -- so ignorant of past history -- so enamoured of the devil himself. It is a sad commentary on a once great nation.

There are also some really good, insightful comments on the story, which shouldn't necessarily be forgotten or ignored. All the same, it is nice to be reminded that the Democratic electorate can be as truly dumb as the Republicans.