I have an idea. Let’s stop calling them “conservatives.” Let’s stop calling them “right-wing,” or anything else that has the connotations of a political philosophy. Let’s call them “Republicans,” and by doing so let’s recognize the word is a team name only, no different than calling them The Elephants or the GoP.

Because they don’t vouch for any kind of political ideal anymore. They are strictly anti-Obama. Whatever Obama wants, they’re opposed to, regardless of what it means. You know people like this—ask them who their favorite football team is, and they’ll say “whoever’s playing against the 49ers.” Or the Yankees. Or the Lakers. Read the rest of this entry »

I’m what you call an expert political analyst, not from the standpoint of knowing what I talk about, but from the stand point of NOT knowing what I talk about. Chances are, you do not have a degree in political science, or a back ground in politics. Neither do I, so we’re on the same wavelength. I’ll go read up on Pennsylvania Phil*, then tell you what I think about it, and I’ll do it in language you and I speak.

I’ve used the analogy before- when experts write how-to books, they are writing them for people who have the potential to be experts. And really, the one way to be really great at something is to do it a lot. No how-to book can take the place of practice, and once you’ve logged a thousand hours practicing, no how-to book is going to tell you anything new.

So on to Mr. Specter. He’s leaving the GoP to become a full-fledged democrat. Hooray? (Sure—if only because it makes the pundits mad.) Rush Limbaugh is glad Arlen’s leaving, since now the republican will be even more conservative than before. Specter was too liberal, you see. Hannity had the same thing to say, speaking with Newt Gingrich. With Specter going, the GoP has even better chance of showing themselves off as the party diametrically opposed to Obama.

So much for bipartisanship. Both Limbaugh and Hannity point out that Specter has been losing ground back at home, and he switched sides so he wouldn’t have to fight for the republican nomination. This is all about getting elected they say. Then what do you call it when you declare the party must define itself as the anti-Obama party? Newt compared it to what Reagan did going up against Carter. If that’s not about getting votes, I don’t know what it is.

It’s certainly not about getting anything actually done.

That’s my take on it, anyway. There’s a bunch of nonsense about some bill that involving union voting, and how Arlen’s going to have to flip-flop now that he’s flip-flopped. (Remember: real conservatives hate worker’s rights).

I’m going to go see what Coulter has to say. Then I’m going to watch the Daily show and the Colbert report and get, you know, real analysis.

*This is supposed to be a joke about Punxsutawney Phil, the groundhog, and seeing one’s shadow, and winter, and all manner of metaphor that I pretty much lost track of before I even started.

I guess a few nights ago Charles Grodin was arguing with Sean Hannity on Hannity’s show about torture. No, wait, not torture, “enhanced interrogation.”: I’m not sure I see the point of this type of discussion—when a Hollywood liberal (I use the term pejoratively) and a right-wing bully get together, no one’s changing their mind about anything. Anyway, Grodin asked Hannity if he’d be willing to be waterboarded. Bad move. I know how was trying to get Hannity to admit that he would not, and that this proves waterboarding is torture. Hannity, of course, said he’d be willing, that he would do it for charity. For the troops families. He’s a sicko. Read the rest of this entry »