Normally, I don't link NYT columnists—especially not Paul Krugman—but this piece of shit is such an amazing example of the lack of self-awareness displayed by people living in the MFM bubble that it belongs in a museum, where future generations can laugh at study it.

Barring a huge upset, Republicans will take control of at least one house of Congress next week. How worried should we be by that prospect?

Not very, say some pundits. After all, the last time Republicans controlled Congress while a Democrat lived in the White House was the period from the beginning of 1995 to the end of 2000. And people remember that era as a good time, a time of rapid job creation and responsible budgets. Can we hope for a similar experience now?

No, we can’t. This is going to be terrible. In fact, future historians will probably look back at the 2010 election as a catastrophe for America, one that condemned the nation to years of political chaos and economic weakness.

Um, could you remind me again which party has had control of the legislative branch of our federal government since the 2006 midterms? I guess there wasn't a whole lot of "political chaos" there, except for the fact that once they really got rolling, they had to pass their major wet-dream legislation through kickbacks and backroom deals, shady procedural maneuvers that nobody had ever heard of, and votes under the cover of darkness, but, hey, I guess shit that you kind of liked got done.

As for economic weakness under a Republican-dominated opposition to Obama's policies, well, you're the Nobel Prize-winning genius who has a column in the NYT and the rest of us don't have jobs, so I guess we'll just have to defer to your superior wisdom. In the mean time, we'll be out collecting bottles and cans.

Krugman goes on to lambaste the poopy-pants Republicans of the mid-90s for the whole government shutdown thing, which was, arguably, bad for both sides. However, he starts that argument with the following:

In the late-1990s, Republicans and Democrats were able to work together on some issues. President Obama seems to believe that the same thing can happen again today. In a recent interview with National Journal, he sounded a conciliatory note, saying that Democrats need to have an “appropriate sense of humility,” and that he would “spend more time building consensus.” Good luck with that.

Um, yeah. The problem lies with congressional Republicans, not President Slurpee Joke. The problem has nothing to do with "I won." The problem has nothing to do with a guy who has no compunction whatsoever about going to an ethnic media outlet and uttering the words "punish your enemies." That's a real consensus-builder right there.

Krugman goes on to talk about how fucking outrageous (my spin on how I think he views it) Mitch McConnell's focus on making sure that Obama is a one-term president (HORRORS! No political party has ever worked to this end!) and then writes one of the goddamn stupidest fucking things ever printed in the history of recent punditry:

True, Mr. McConnell did say that he might be willing to work with Mr. Obama in certain circumstances — namely, if he’s willing to do a “Clintonian back flip,” taking positions that would find more support among Republicans than in his own party. Of course, this would actually hurt Mr. Obama’s chances of re-election — but that’s the point.

As someone recently said to Obama himself: "Dude." The reason anyone other than Krugman, who's seemingly giving himself a visual prostate exam here, would mention a "Clintonian back flip" is that it fucking worked for Clinton. In fact, if McConnell actually suggested it, he's kind of fucking up on that whole "one-term" thing.

Bill Clinton ran as a moderate and then tried to ram a Big Government, leftist agenda down America's throat, and subsequently faced a massive backlash. What did he do? He moved toward the center, and got re-elected. Hey, fancy that.

Barry and Krugman both have Nobels. I once got four gold stars on a crayon drawing of a horsey, and my mom put it up on the fridge. I leave it up to you to determine which is the greater honor.

Posted by: Sean M. at 05:27 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 716 words, total size 5 kb.

Nope. Not at all. There's no such donkey animal. I'm totally sure that the juxtaposition of photographs at the top of this Politico article on the Nevada Senate race regarding alleged dirty deeds from the Reid campaign is just a coincidence...



Yeah.

Posted by: Sean M. at 02:42 AM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

Really? Are you guys (by which I mean the MFM) still trying to prop this pathetic thing up?

A progressive infusion in US politics, the Coffee Party is brewing a strong counter-movement to the ultra-conservative Tea Party, just a week ahead of the US legislative elections.

Born in January in reaction to the bashing President Barack Obama's proposed health care reform was getting in Congress and the media, the Coffee Party first took shape on Facebook.

I'm not going to even bother to quote any more of the article, which mainly quotes leftist activist Annabel Park talking about how many Facebook friends she has.

Posted by: Sean M. at 05:20 AM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.

Democrat president who's unpopular going into the midterms? Check.

Pushback against said president's policies, especially on government control of health insurance? Check.

MFM outlet doing a scare-tactic story about wingnut militias who believe in all kinds of Alex Jones-type conspiracies? Check and double-fucking check.

I'm not even going to excerpt this. You're going to have to read it to believe it.

Time should be ashamed for publishing anything so fucking blatantly shitty.

Posted by: Sean M. at 05:06 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

Heh.
And this is how I can be allies with social cons.
When Brent Bozell is not talking about the media, he's usually annoying me. But when he talks media, well, he's usually entertaining me.

In today's exciting episode, his Media Research Center is starting a campaign to try to shame Minitru (they don't have any, but I'm rooting for him anyway).
He actually has a bunch of trucks circling the block around a bunch of Minitru outlets in NY and DC with signs telling them to stop lying.
Update: The campaign is not just the trucks, there are TV, intertube and radio ads and billboards. They accept donations.

According to this CNSNews article, it's not just broadcast Minitru outlets but print like the Wash Post and intertubing Minitru tools like Politico and, my personal favorite, they're even circling the Newseum.
For those who don't know, that's a museum about journalists where today's "journalists" can go to pretend they're all brave and smart and stuff. 
I went once with a producer friend of mine. I'll go again when they have exhibits on Walter Duranty and/or Dan Rather and his Microsoft memos from 1972.

Bravo Brent.
H/T chain, Nice Deb to Gateway Pundit (she's before GP on my intertubing) to the CNSNews article, h/t on the MRC link to Veeshir.

Posted by: Veeshir at 08:23 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 2 kb.