Because they're assholes

|
(56)
Tea Party Members Covering the Village People's "YMCA"
AP

Yesterday, Business Insider, the bastion of leftist socialism, reported that the Republican Party's negatives are polling at an all time high. 59% of the public disapproves of the GOP. That number has only been this high once before.

The piece and a companion on Yahoo attributes the dissatisfaction to over-reach on the IRS/Benghazi issues mostly. Also the phenomena of "gerrymandering as electoral poison", where congress-people from safe districts reflect their constituents' views and those constituents are way out of America's mainstream. Logical reasons, all of them.

I disagree. How many people really follow these scandals that closely? 40% of the people that thought Benghazi was a major issue can't even find it on a map and they care about it. Imagine the people that hear "Benghazi" and think of the actor with the similar name or the tiger with the similar name. Most people don't care at all about these matters, so why would they dislike the GOP that much?

The reason is painfully obvious and is not a surprise. But no one wants to say it aloud. I will, though--while many Republicans are indeed wonderful people (and relatives), most of them in 2013 are just plain assholes.

They're assholes. The kind of unpleasant, red-eyed, mouth-foaming obsessives whose every thought centers around partisan politics and how every news item can be determined as good or bad. Not "true" or "false", mind you. And this monomaniacal focus means that dealing with them in person is a drag and on the Internet, a nightmare. Any buzz word, anything they heard in their hermetically-sealed-off-from-reality echo chamber is barfed back onto the rest of us in a technicolor spew of incomprehensible talking points. Conversations with them have to be carefully parsed so as not to set them off. That may be OK when dealing with a child with an emotional issue, but these are technically adults. Who wants to self-censor everything lest they get a torrent of twittery back?

It's like the guy on the bus that hasn't bathed in a month. No one wants to sit near him. And the guy on the bus may be a great guy. But at that moment, he stinks. That's how Republicans have become on the issue of politics. Keep them away from the topic and they may be OK, but because so many of them live for the stimulating rush of "telling off the libs", they're basically, well, assholes.

The worst part of this is that their hapless and cowardly adversaries, the Democratic Party, now need do almost nothing to win elections. All a Democrat has to be is "not them" in a fair part of the country to be competitive. Smile a lot, seem reasonable and speak calmly even as you do awful shit (see "drones") or nothing (see "Gitmo" or "non prosecution of Wall Street"). (See Obama, Barack).

This was not the case in my youth. Republicans were generally the thoughful, prudent careful ones and even if they were still Tory-like, they weren't aggressive about it and saw the other person's point of view. Today's Republican politician and their enablers bellow out inane Heritage Foundation horseshit and with a patina of smug contempt for the uncoverted, not unlike the above it all hippies post-Altamont. Their leaders and pundits wonder what might win people over to them? Simple. Stop catering to and being assholes. After that, you'll be fine.

Comments

is your real point that most voters are assholes?

And why no coverage of a much bigger issue than Benghazi, i.e. the IRS partisan auditing, which is increasingly looking like it has nodded thru by the White House?

Posted by Guest on May. 25, 2013 @ 9:53 am

"Coverage" is not an applicable term in regards to an editorial essay. I would guess this would be an example of why the author of the essay chose the term "incomprehensible" in describing conservative tirades.

Posted by Nate on May. 25, 2013 @ 10:31 am

I feel like you're missing the critical point and you're harking on word choice. You're a shitty reader, and an asshole too.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 03, 2013 @ 7:56 am

Often the people let them down and vote wrong or don't share the correct biases.

Posted by Johnny Wad on May. 25, 2013 @ 10:43 am

Bigger shmigger, I'll give you bigger you putz, I survived the Death Camps 70 years ago...you don't know from nothin' . Kvetch, kvetch, kvetch, you have no idea how good you have it you spoiled shtick drech, FEH, FEH I say !

Posted by Chaim Horowitz on May. 25, 2013 @ 7:18 pm

That's what I call progressives!

Posted by Guest nicolas on May. 25, 2013 @ 10:19 am

The political equivalent of a puckering befouled sphincter who's soul purpose seems to be nothing more than pinching off logs of excretia? Yup. That about sums it up...

Posted by Volt on May. 25, 2013 @ 10:21 am

Too true JAW. There is a distinct lack of optimism and hope that comes from the other side. It is almost as if they want a Mad Max-styled world. The sad truth is however, they wouldn't make it in that kind of scenario. You can be too, too much of a true believer. There are plenty on the left side of the aisle who suffer from this as well. Love reading yer cock-eyed take on things. Keep it up.

Posted by Spaceman on May. 25, 2013 @ 10:25 am

power of self-determination.

The left wants the government to decide who gets what.

Posted by Guest on May. 25, 2013 @ 1:34 pm

Actually, deciding who gets what is pretty much what government does, to some extent or another. One party ( I'll let you guess) wants those who already have plenty to have more.

Posted by Guest on May. 25, 2013 @ 8:16 pm

Their primary purpose should be to raise revenue and not to punish and reward different classes of people.

Posted by Guest on May. 26, 2013 @ 11:16 am

Why do you call educating low income ppl punishment? If those with gobs of money - in a high % of the cases, much of it made with almost little effort (see hedge fund billionaires) and crooked methods (see hedge fund billionaires) such as insider trading (which can occur in many ways and is used in many ways by many of the HFBs), then there's nothing wrong with taxing the living shit out of these ppl so that those who are barely making can attend a school to be educated and greatly improve their lot.

Some big earthshattering news you need to hear: the world aint black and white. Taxes are used to run society to a large extent and those with the most should pay a much higher % - because that much higher % won't hurt them IN A REAL SENSE (having food to eat, a comfortable place to live, a nice car to drive, healthcare) BUT it will make LOTS of ppl able to get out of the hole their in and be a contributing member of society.

It's a shame you never obtained any morals - REAL MORALS - because fighing hard for those with the most so those with the least stay in their terrible position, is a person with ZERO morals. Sucks to be you - no matter how much $ you have.

Posted by Guest on May. 26, 2013 @ 10:50 pm

The purpose of taxes is not to punish those who take risks, work hard and create jobs and prosperity.

We used to have policies like you clearly suggest i.e. income tax rates up to 80% or so. We haven't had those for 30 years and even liberal Presidents like Clinton and Obama recognize that such punitive, confiscatory tax rates are counter-productive.

The country has moved on from that and left you behind.

Posted by Guest on May. 28, 2013 @ 8:30 am

decreased social mobility, increased income and wealth disparities, diminishing real wages, decreased standard of living for the bottom 90%...

Posted by Guest on May. 28, 2013 @ 9:09 am

There is no evidence that high taxes would lead to a lower rate of unemployment. Indeed, the exact opposite is more probable i.e. anything that increases cost for businesses and deters investment would likely lead to less jobs and so higher unemployment.

Disparities of wealth and income are not necessarily a problem at all. Suppose Warren Buffett moves into your town. That immediately increases the disparity of wealth and income. But either it will make no difference to how poor the poor in that town are, or they will benefit indirectly from the extra local spending, investment and taxes that would come with that.

Diminishing real wages? Again irrelevant to the tax rate. Or, if anything, higher taxes feed into higher costs, driving up inflation and therefore reducing the real value of wages.

Social mobility? That's a fairly hard thing to measure compared with, say, geographic mobility for which the US scores high compared with, say, sclerotic Europe. You might argue that economic mobility is lower in the US but I haven't seen any evidence for that either and, again, if anything punitive taxes would make it harder for the poor to become richer because it disincentivizes work.

So, you're 100% wrong, I'm afraid.

Posted by Guest on May. 28, 2013 @ 9:41 am

empirical evidence with theoretical rhetoric. And I'm wrong?

Posted by Guest on May. 28, 2013 @ 9:54 am

You made a series of unsubstantiated claims which I demolished one by one.

Posted by Guest on May. 28, 2013 @ 10:19 am

all my claims have been substantiated in these comment pages before. You choose to ignore statistics, so why post them again?

Posted by Guest on May. 28, 2013 @ 10:54 am

"evidence" in a completely different thread maybe weeks ago?

That's your "evidence"?

Posted by Guest on May. 28, 2013 @ 11:03 am

Republican policies reward the rich and punish the poor. But that, I suppose, is OK.

Posted by Hortencia on May. 28, 2013 @ 7:20 am

You can incentivize the wealth creators without impoverishing anyone.

Poor people don't get richer when rich people have less money. In fact, they may just lose their job instead.

Posted by Anon on May. 28, 2013 @ 8:28 am

...is the most common way to become poor.

Posted by Hortencia on May. 28, 2013 @ 8:39 pm

Case in Point - here is a comment by a Tea Party acolyte on a friend's facebook post: " "I get the wage I get because I wicked smart and really fucking good at what I do."

Posted by Chris on May. 25, 2013 @ 10:38 am

People on the left don't want to do well in their chosen fields?

Posted by Johnny Wad on May. 25, 2013 @ 10:45 am

"I get the wage I get because I wicked smart and really fucking good at what I do."

I bet that most of the registered Democrats who work for Bay Area tech companies have exactly the same attitude.

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly, Persistent on May. 25, 2013 @ 11:56 am

"This was not the case in my youth. Republicans were generally the thoughful, prudent careful ones and even if they were still Tory-like, they weren't aggressive about it and saw the other person's point of view."

Interesting that the author of this rant didn't sign it. Can't imagine who wrote it...

Perhaps it's because when the assholes are on the Left - Chris Daly, say - the SFBG has no problem supporting them.

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly, Persistent on May. 25, 2013 @ 11:49 am

""This was not the case in my youth. Republicans were generally the thoughful, prudent careful ones and even if they were still Tory-like, they weren't aggressive about it and saw the other person's point of view."

Well, now that Johnny has admitted authorship (he **is** getting paid by the word, isn't he), let's consider this statement.

His Wikipedia entry doesn't give his date of birth, but his first music gig was 1977, so let's assume this approximates his "youth".

So, who were the Republican leaders during the '70's? Nixon. Reagan (rising to President in 1980). Jesse Helms. (Gerald Ford couldn't get reelected.)

Think Johnny liked any of these guys when they were actually in power? Didn't think so.

This is a favorite trope of Leftists - they claim to like Republicans who held office years ago (who are all safely dead), and claim to dislike only current Republicans.

Of course, at the time, they hated the earlier Republicans just as much as the current ones.

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly, Persistent on May. 25, 2013 @ 5:21 pm

Even Nixon was a big liberal by today's standards, and we didn't really start hating him until it was revealed what a creepy hypocrite lying crook he was. There were a number of other liberal Repulicans of that pre-Reagan era; Johnny and I have already discussed John Linsay of New York, and notably there was also Rockefeller.

Reagan held no office during the 1970's, confused, and Ford wasn't ever *elected* to the presidency, so declaring that he was unable to get "re-elected" makes you seem a proper ass... which is only fitting.

The current crop of Repugs and their Internet minions are like pesticide-addled cockroaches.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 25, 2013 @ 5:53 pm

"Even Nixon was a big liberal by today's standards, and we didn't really start hating him until it was revealed what a creepy hypocrite lying crook he was."

LOL. Yeah, I'm sure you loved Nixon until Watergate happened. LOL.

1970 ring a bell? Vietnam War?

"Johnny and I have already discussed John Linsay of New York, and notably there was also Rockefeller."

Lindsay switched to the Democratic Party in 1971 - no wonder you liked him.

Rockefeller? Really? Guess you like really sucking up to really rich families...

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly, Persistent on May. 25, 2013 @ 7:17 pm

you didn't catch my gaff denuding Reagan of his second term as California's governor. In any case, anybody who is interested in learning more about the former liberal wing of the Republican party can do better just about anywhere than listening to your spittle-flung aberrations.

Yes, the liberal president who entertained the idea of implementing a minimum income for all Americans, put price ceilings into place on basic necessities, and signed the legislation creating the now-despised Environmental Protection Agency... was Richard Milhous Nixon.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 25, 2013 @ 7:58 pm

Glad you loved Nixon, Lilli.

I was protesting against him.

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly, Persistent on May. 25, 2013 @ 9:49 pm

"The worst part of this is that their hapless and cowardly adversaries, the Democratic Party, now need do almost nothing to win elections... (See Obama, Barack).

You mean the guy who won reelection with a stunning 51.1% landslide?

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly, Persistent on May. 25, 2013 @ 11:51 am
Posted by Greg on May. 25, 2013 @ 10:00 pm

Yeah, Obama in 2012 got four-tenths of a percent more than Bush in 2004.

Why, it's a mandate!

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly, Persistent on May. 25, 2013 @ 11:22 pm

If only he treated it as such -like Bush did -instead of pre-emptively capitulating to the Republicans.

Posted by Greg on May. 25, 2013 @ 11:44 pm

issues that have no bearing on socioeconomic class. Gays can openly serve imperialism. BFD. Don't ask, don't serve.

He's not capitulating, he's doing the job the owners of the country hired him to do. Preserve (actually increase) their wealth. Reduce the safety net, or better yet, privatize social programs.

His shredding of our constitutional protections is second to none. I took shit from people when I dubbed him the bi-racial Bush in 2009, but at least opposition to Bush mobilized the center/left instead of the liberal ass kissing we now endure.

Posted by Guest on May. 26, 2013 @ 12:14 am

Part of this I think is that many (mainly white and mainly male) are seeing what "their" country is changing into, that it no longer reflects them and it bugs them. I say "their" in quotations because a lot in that group, be it those now in their 70s-80s or graying baby-boomers, were raised to believed that America was only for them to manage and that the rest were "just visiting" you could say.

Their schools don't reflect them. The workplaces doesn't reflect them. And for so many, their retirement accounts don't reflect what they believe should be them. Its insecurity and a stunning realization that many didn't achieve what the system made them believe could be theirs if they tried. For many of them, they’ve turned to living vicariously (whether they want to admit it or not) through those who are successful, because success = them regardless if the winner is white or black, though many prefer the former to the latter (once again whether they want to admit it or not). When their perception of capitalism or one of their “winners” is exposed with a negative revelation in any way, its an attack on many of them. Because remember, they’re supposed to be the Alphas.

Everything is that other group's fault: If those Mexicans didn't cross the border, well then X wouldn't be closing or Y wouldn't be running out of money, and I wouldn't have to Press 1 for English. If it wasn't for those darn labor unions, we could be making stuff here and not "Communist China." Its somehow some that other person going on public dole for health that's causing my doctors so much angst that its got me worried.

You get the idea, you've heard the rants. Oh and then there's the one about the debt which is because of welfare. We need Republicans because they say they're "business minded" people to cut out the fat in government!!! And reallocate their money back to them (even if in reality it just may mean more crony capitalism) Why? Well because they played by the system and don’t want to begin to think the system played them. Yet, deep in their heart or in the recesses of their brains, they know its true. They can never accept this, because then everything else must be questioned and accept the reality that the “other group” and them are the same group. So ladies and gentlemen, that reality, that it is a much smaller clique that are the alphas who made fools of them is what is drying them bat shit insane.

Posted by Johnny Venom on May. 25, 2013 @ 12:29 pm

they came storming back in 2010, with the Tea Party, and easily look the House of Rep's, thereby rendering Obama a lame duck.

Both of the major parties have been written off many times but, in the end, it is the third parties that can never achieve power.

Nothing new here.

Posted by Guest on May. 25, 2013 @ 12:52 pm

The Repugnants only won the House in 2010 due to massive fraud in the drawing of districts. For proof of this, all one needs to know is that in the 2012 House elections, more voters voted for Democrats than Repugnants - yet the Repugnants have many more members in the House than Democrats. That's called corruption and fraud - something the Repugnant Party has perfected - along with becoming experts at spewing propaganda thru ownership of a majority of the mainstream media.

This fraud - where the party that gets the least number of votes gets the most House seats - a fraud that is never talked about, should be talked about so that a majority of the ppl would know THEY are the ones that are the REAL victims of this fraud.

Posted by Guest on May. 26, 2013 @ 11:03 pm

"For proof of this, all one needs to know is that in the 2012 House elections, more voters voted for Democrats than Repugnants - yet the Repugnants have many more members in the House than Democrats."

Yawn. The D's have a lot of inner-city seats where they get 90%-100% of the vote.
In many cases, that's to make sure that certain House seats are guaranteed for minority candidates. R's generally don't have seats like that.

That fact that Republicans tend to win seats that are remotely competitive is your problem...

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly, Persistent on May. 26, 2013 @ 11:54 pm

Johnny's a great Internet blogger!

"They're assholes".

Agreed!

They are full of poop too.

Posted by Henry on May. 25, 2013 @ 5:13 pm

Johnny's providing the hard-hitting, reasoned political commentary that I've come to expect from the San Francisco Bay Guardian!

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly, Persistent on May. 25, 2013 @ 5:22 pm

Attacking a United States embassy is exactly the same as attacking the United States.

When the US embassy in Benghazi was being attacked on 9/11/2012, an order was given to STAND DOWN, meaning, do not send help.

Four American lives could have possibly been saved if that order was not given.

I ask the author of this article, who gave the order to stand down?

I'm serious, please, who gave the order to stand down?

If you can not give an answer to that question then you, Johnny Angel Wendell, are the true asshole.

Posted by Guestbill\\\\+ on May. 25, 2013 @ 6:08 pm

crap? Guestbill? Hello? You've been breathing your own exhaust and have such a bad case of cyanosis that you've no doubt lost half of your precious brain cells already! Move to a source of fresh air without delay! Stay clear of Breitbart for at least two hours and hyperventilate. Some small degree of normalcy might return... though I wouldn't bet on it.

There was no "stand down" order ... and, by the way, Clinton never missed an opportunity to kill Osama Bin Laden either. You nut jobs are something else.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 25, 2013 @ 8:07 pm

Who gives a crap about this stuff?

Posted by Greg on May. 25, 2013 @ 10:02 pm

And that, in a nutshell, is what is so very very wrong with this country. Thank you for being a shining examples to others.

Posted by Guest Dave on May. 26, 2013 @ 4:48 am

"Republicans are assholes" and then you chuckleheads prove it. Remind me to bring some cards next time I'm in SF so I can fleece you pathetic suckers.

Posted by Scott on May. 25, 2013 @ 8:13 pm

Don't you love the smell of unbridled 'progressive' arrogance, hatred and civil discourse in the morning? What a treat. And to think I could have gone all day without being called an azzhole.

Posted by Guest on May. 26, 2013 @ 8:28 am

to prove that you are *NOT* an asshole?

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 26, 2013 @ 9:05 am

And then there are the "progressive" assholes who assume moral superiority over President Obama and "cowardly" Democrats because they support killing overseas terrorists before they can kill Americans. We were supposed to wait until Awlaki, for example, blew up an airliner before we took him out?

Obama has made it clear that he thought Wall Street indulged in criminally negligent behavior before the Great Recession, but it's not his job to tell the Attorney General who to prosecute. Recall that that was the sort of thing President Nixon did.

The US left: so lame that it won't defend itself---or the American people---from people who want to kill them. Fortunately, President Obama is not a "progressive."

Posted by Rob Anderson on May. 26, 2013 @ 11:16 am