Archive for the 'Beltway-itis' Category

Jewish blood is pretty cheap nowadays.

May 21, 2011 in Beltway-itis, Israel

On the transparent fake outrage over Obama saying absolutely nothing new about Israel/Palestine using the ’67 borders as a starting basis:

As an Israeli citizen…You should know that many Israelis actually do understand that we should go back to 67′ borders, but the environment here is so toxic – Not unlike what the far right has done in America – that you just can’t say anything out loud or you’ll be denounce as almost Antisemitic. What’s going on here is awful, Bibi is taking us straight to hell.

Charges of anti-Semitism have lost their market value. Notice, this is from a citizen in Israel, and even there, among Jewish people, dissent gets one called a Jew-hater (just that you’re a self-hating Jew). Obviously, all borders of decency and shame have been erased. One must simply resign oneself to the inevitable: To speak about Israel in any terms other than that of the most belligerently rightwing guarantees that the label anti-Semite will be applied. Nothing you do will prove your bona fides. Nothing you can say will make them stop, except complete capitulation. It doesn’t matter if you think the Likud/American right is pushing Israel on a path towards destruction, your desire to save Israel will not be regarded seriously. You may only take one position: Israel takes what it wants, and Palestinians agree to settle for what’s left, and none of it matters because it’s all Israel anyway. Otherwise, put on your showercap, because the Jewish blood is going to get dumped on your head.

BTW, this is what passes for Palestine nowadays:

Obama didn’t say anything that hadn’t been U.S. policy for decades, but as Andrew Sullivan has been chronicling, the standard is that one adheres to what Israel wants, when it wants it, and right now, with Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister, this subservience must be offered to the most uncompromising, rigid, unashamedly imperialist prime minister Israel has seen since…the last time Netanyahu was prime minister. Except this time he’s gotten much worse. And this standard doesn’t come from Israel alone, but rather the Republican right and the neocon Beltway elites at the WaPo and NYT. It has become startlingly apparent that, in these people’s eyes, the president of the United States is expected to take his orders from Israel’s prime minister. Thus, Republicans in Congress with no hesitation actively rub shoulders with Netanyahu and seek to undermine their own president. Obama’s speech is a grave affront to Israel, in their eyes, but no face-slap from Netanyahu is questioned.

Anti-Semitism is a real force for evil in the world, but no slur can be allowed to become so feared that one’s actions are dictated by the aversion of ever having it applied to oneself. People will call names. Let them. It’s called ad hominem, and it only matters as much as it is true. So one must return to the arguments. And, as far as my arguments go, I’m quite sure I’ve never said a single thing about Israel that connotes a scrap of anti-Semitism. Nobody has ever offered me a serious challenge to cause me to suspect otherwise. The world is full of assertions. Me, I know myself well enough to know how much love I have for the Jewish people and how much I do wish they had a genuine sanctuary free from worry, and I make the effort to see that all my positions on Israel flow from that foundation.

No matter how great a country Israel is, and no matter how good their people are, they’re just like anybody else: They have rightwingers. Radical ones, religious ones. And, much like in our country, they’re doing everything they can to drive the truck off the cliff. At least here it’s openly known that our rightwingers look forward to Israel’s conversion to Christianity or condemnation to Hell, yet sadly Israeli rightwingers are all too happy to take whatever help they can get for what they believe are their current interests. Their own radical delusions are imagined as trumping whatever silly fantasies their American counterparts have.


I got the Beltway-itis real bad, Poppa!

Apr 15, 2011 in Beltway-itis, Clueless Conservatives, Journamalism

Republicans shrieked in horror that President Obama was being “partisan” after he pointed out certain facts like their intent to dismantle Medicare (however hard that may be to get them to admit, you can if you press long enough or, y’know, actually spend any time hanging around Republican chat forums), and Mark Halperin, always mindful that his future seat at FOX be kept warm, leads the charge for the Beltway press to dutifully regurgitate whatever Republican strategists say. Miraculously, Obama is getting some serious street cred from a lot in the media for actually proposing a halfway sane budget solution instead of Ryan’s wet kiss to the Tea Party nutbaggers, but let’s examine, oh so briefly, the claim in dispute-

Quick cut to the Great Communicator:

… America is on the mend, but this recovery could be stopped dead in its tracks if big spenders in the Congress have their way….

Right now, House liberals are pushing a budget — the so-called liberal Democratic budget — that, if implemented, would reverse the progress we’ve made and wreck our program to rebuild the economy. They want to throw out the window much of the domestic budget savings we’ve achieved over the last 2 years. And they would go much further, seeking $181 billion in higher domestic spending over the next 5 years, excesses that would send the budget, prices, and interest rates soaring out of control and our economy into a tailspin.

To cite just one example, Medicare would be driven into bankruptcy by the failure of their budget to address its problems….

Now, how do they propose to pay for their reckless binge? Two ways: by compromising America’s defense security and by slapping massive new tax increases on every working family. Ignoring the Soviets’ tremendous advantage in military forces, the liberals would cripple our efforts to modernize America’s defenses. To put it bluntly, their budget gambles with our security and safety….

I dunno. Simply believing a single word the Republicans say puts you at risk of utterly debasing yourself, yet good people just can’t accept that and keep trying to lend them good faith. But they’re always, always, always gaming the message. Taking them at face value is simply surrendering your intelligence and choosing fear. The slightest scrutiny always, always, always sends them running.


The sickly corruption of Beltway-itis.

Aug 25, 2010 in Beltway-itis, Journamalism

Mark Halperin practically invented it. Go ahead and read the link if you want to find out why President Obama is wrong to point out that Republicans want to target Social Security. Short version: It’ll make Republicans grumpy and unlikely to compromise.

Okay, Halperin, you asshole. What explains the past two years of record-breaking obstructionism after Obama came at the Republicans with nothing but olive branches and premature compromises? After two years of “OBAMA IS TEH SOCIALIST DICTATOR!” Obama has to watch out for hurting their feelings by describing their dream policies accurately?

You can go ahead and read it to see where Halperin points out Obama is wrong on the facts. You won’t find anything. Just the insistence that Obama hunker down and smile while Republicans kick his teeth in.


Waaaaaaaaaaaahshington Press

Apr 13, 2010 in Beltway-itis, Journamalism

The little catty bitches never seem to get it. It’s not about them. After groveling and chortling for eight years of the liars Bush paraded in front of them (Ari Fleischer, Scott McClellan, Tony Snow, Dana Perino), now the WH press has finally found a reason to be mad at a WH press secretary: Not kissing their asses. The result? This hit piece, somehow delivered as serious analysis.

In reality, it’s all a bunch of self-centered whining from the press corps over petty business. Apparently it’s Gibbs’ job to make the press feel good about themselves and insure that they get all scoops first. Releasing info via Twitter? Not taking silly questions seriously? Asking to get back to reporters with info later? The horror never ends.

This is all treated as “contempt for the press,” but there’s little to make the case that there’s any contempt for journalism. Were the WH press a little more interested in doing that, as they clearly weren’t during eight years of stenography for the Bush press secretaries, and as they still aren’t, fainting about Obama going to his daughter’s soccer game without the press, perhaps they’d be treated a bit more seriously.

Do yourself a disfavor and read it yourself. If you spot an ounce of substance, feel free to let me know.


“He should have focused on the economy.”

Feb 23, 2010 in Beltway-itis, Clueless Conservatives

Yglesias stops and takes a look at this never-quite-explained meme:

Are there any centrist Democrats or moderate Republicans who are going to claim that had Obama backed off on health care they would have voted for substantial additional short-term stimulus measures? Do any sources at the Federal Reserve think that had Obama not attempted health reform that Ben Bernanke would have implemented a more expansionary agenda? As far as I know, the answer to both of those questions is “no” so nothing was actually traded off when Obama decided to focus on health care. But even though everyone in the media is very interested in second-guessing Obama these days, nobody seems interested in looking in to these issues.

Obama and the Democrats were certainly a bit busy this past year. After all, Republicans managed to filibuster 80% of the bills Congress tried passing. Of course, I would have wanted a robust public works bill last year, but that would have been filibustered also. So what exactly are people talking about? As usual, so much noise, so few solutions.


How RUDE of Maddow to point out Aaron Schock’s blatant hypocrisy!

Feb 14, 2010 in Beltway-itis, Clueless Conservatives, Journamalism, Librulz, Media, Outstanding Democrats

This is the type of behavior that gets you called “rude” and “shrill” by Republicans. Maddow pointed out that Schock was taking credit for stimulus dollars locally that he publicly derided in DC.

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The chances that David Gregory would have called out Rep. Schock on this type of hypocrisy is precisely zero. As he’s stated before, it’s not a journalists job to raise scrutiny over the claims of politicians. That’s why it’s always enjoyable to see an actual liberal on a Sunday morning talk show who isn’t deathly afraid of being thought of as unreasonable by David Broder.

Sure, it’s a cliche, BUT…

Jan 02, 2010 in Beltway-itis, Media, Politics

Ben Smith wants you to know that “some Democrats” think that Obama should have handled the attempted terrorist attempt differently. In this case “Democrats” equals one Doug Schoen:

“They should have approached it as a national security emergency requiring a bipartisan response, not a political response,” said Doug Schoen, a pollster who worked for President Bill Clinton in the 1990s. “He absolutely should have interrupted his vacation and absolutely should have gone back to Washington, and convened a high-level, bipartisan meeting.”

He forgot to mention that Schoen is a paid Fox contributor, perpetual concern-troll, and Republican placater. The rest of the article is filled with one “some might argue” and “others note that” after another.

I admit; I don’t know what a bipartisan meeting would have looked like but I’m pretty certain that it would not have accomplished anything besides rile the public up more than necessary. The fact that Obama’s evened response didn’t have any of these consequences indicates to me that it was the right move. Back to the concern trolling:

Explanations of Obama’s low-key reaction in the face of a terror attack include the characteristic caution of a president who resists jumping to conclusions and being pushed to action. They also include the White House’s belief – disproven repeatedly in 2009 – that it can evade the clichéd rules of politics, which include a suspicion of Democratic leadership on national security. Only Sunday night, when criticism of the system “worked” comment was not going away, did White House aides realize their approach was not working and that they needed to shift course.

It’s only a “rule” because outfits like Politico are more than happy to perpetuate these cliches by writing three page opinion essays with titles like “Democrats’ worst nightmare: Terrorism on their watch”.

Again, it’s unclear what a more hysterical reaction would have accomplished besides ease Beltway anxieties about Obama’s lack of symbolism/histrionics. But I guess when you’re too lazy to develop a systemic analysis or an original opinion on terrorism then what you’re stuck with is tedious water-cooler banter about Washington stereotypes.


John King has no self-awareness.

Mar 17, 2009 in Beltway-itis, Journamalism

More Dick Cheney Fellatio Watch: Andrew Sullivan gives credit to, then destroys the fawning John King, who seems to absorb GOP/Beltway memes like Bounty.

In King’s words, the black sites were simply “where they interrogate terror suspects,” in almost the exact same terms that the last president used to conceal what was done there. King then follows up by saying that Obama has “defined waterboarding as torture”, where the truth is that Obama has no more power to define waterboarding as torture than Cheney has in denying it. The law has always clearly and categorically defined it as torture.

But telling the truth – and confronting the powerful with it – ruins the aura of objectivity; and offends sources whom one needs for future scoops. It makes an interview unpleasant and confrontational, when both Cheney and King go out of their way to signal their familiarity and almost friendship with one another.

What did Dick Cheney do to turn the Washington press corps into a gang of wide-eyed aw-shucks golly-gee teenagers who want to be just like him when they grow up? How many times do these things need to be pointed out for John King to gain some self-awareness and sense of shame?


UPDATE: Greenwald brings out the nukes.

For many of these sycophantic, needy TV journalists, Dick Cheney is still the icon of Serious Protective Republican Authority — that which, more than anything, merits our deep respect and gratitude.

The nominations for worst of the Beltway continue.

Jan 22, 2009 in Beltway-itis, Journamalism

David Ignatius is one of the great archetypal Beltway fools, occasionally able to impart some knowledge but consistently subscribing to some lazy paradigms in order to carve a quick path to “balance.” The Beltway Handbook features this interesting excerpt:

Clause 325.b: Rush Limbaugh may be bad, but any loud liberal is his equivalent. This axiom shall never require substantiation.

Kos fires back with a sniper shot to the dome, focusing on the issues where he has been right while Limbaugh was carrying Bush’s water. Every word is worth reading, but here’s a sweet sample:

This is why I have come, in these recent years, to despise these people. There is no abomination on this earth worth an emotional outburst, in their minds — no conflict worth a raised voice. There is only the mushy, cowardly middle, one that never stands for anything too much or critiques anything too loudly. They all stink like fish, they have been praising the status quo for so long and so colorlessly — and yet they fancy themselves intellectuals for it, and even presume themselves courageous for it.

The Beltway worships power. The Bush administration was a unity between political and corporate power, which made breaking away and speaking out so dangerous in the minds of Ignatius and the rest of the press as Bush spent several years getting away with whatever he wanted while the dirty hippies were sneered at.

Unfortunately, Obama and the Democrats only possess as much corporate pull as the economic crash gives them. As noted earlier, the Beltway is still against reforming health care in any way that impacts the bottom line of HMOs. He will not receive the same deference that the press gave Bush’s chance to privatize Social Security.

What Ignatius has to excise is that Kos, unlike Rush Limbaugh, is capable of coherent logical thought, and susceptible to facts and reason. While these consensus monkeys are cautiously nodding that Bush was a bad president, careful to warn us that Obama may end up justifying Bush and Cheney, or that anybody who manages to fix Iraq will be serving only Bush’s legacy, it is only because people like Kos and the grassroots had to do the heavy lifting of shouting out what needed to be said until people like Ignatius could hear it in their corporate towers.

Obama, seismic victory and all, will not receive the same deference that Bush received. The crowds of two days ago only marginally moved the hearts of Washington reporters. Kos and his supporters will have to keep fighting to get past these obstinate guardians of cowardice. No matter the reasonableness of their claims, or their popularity, they will continue to be dismissed and dumped in the same pig trough as Limbaugh.

For twenty years, Rush Limbaugh was one of the most powerful people in the country, a cult leader who engaged in no dialogues and brooked no dissent. Kos is merely a moderator, a man whose opinions are often drowned out by the people his site empowers to speak up for themselves. Ignatius knows this, as it is the diaries on DailyKos that give people like him the ammunition to employ the false equivalence.

To compare Limbaugh’s bellering to Kos’ argumentation is intellectually dishonest. To compare Limbaugh with his dittoheads to Kos with his empowered grassroots is a disgusting insult steeped in contempt for democracy.

History has rarely presented us with societies where competing forces are always two sides of the same coin. The Beltway hack working to make deadline employs cost-cutting thinking that transposes us into an imaginary world.

Wake up, Ignatius, you lazy bastard.


Prosecuting Bush administration would be “politicizing justice.”

Jan 20, 2009 in Beltway-itis, Politics

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like not prosecuting is “politicizing” justice.

Seriously, everything said by Republicans and echoed by the loyalist press has been, “Well, Obama COULD let the DOJ move forward, do its job, and let fall who may, BUT that would have terrible political implications.”

Which is a tacit admission that while no man may, technically, be above the law, practicing this has become politically incorrect.

I’m not sure how I can be wrong that this is a sickness in the system.


UPDATE: Conyers hits Newsweek, which has been fucking irritating lately, for pushing this meme.

The dutiful corporate media.

Jan 20, 2009 in Beltway-itis, Economy, Journamalism

DougJ at Balloon Juice punctures Andrea Mitchell and other gilded Beltway types who are dutifully informing us that “sacrifice” means some people are going to have to keep going on without healthcare while the wealthy continue to see how high one can stack cash.

I recommend clicking on the link to see the numbers and give Balloon Juice the love. But in your bones you know the scoop: the wealthy have had their taxes slashed and their income exploded beyond all proportion to their work, while the rest of the country, middle class and all, has barely nudged ahead. Our cheap gizmos are cooler now than they were, but we’re struggling to own homes, send our children to college, take them to a doctor, or get them braces.

But to Andrea Mitchell, “sacrifice” means making sure we don’t threaten the insane profits of HMOs and pharmaceutical companies or the golden parachutes of CEOs who steer their companies into default.

Surely she is one of the worst people on television, and an eyesore to boot. All of her skill seems devoted to being the most Beltway-iest Corporatist schmournalist on the non-Fox airwaves.


The Beltway can’t help itself.

Oct 30, 2008 in Beltway-itis, Politics

One party is always the mirror image of the other!

That’s harder to imagine, though, as each party’s moderate wing shrinks.


Next sentence:

A Democratic sweep might bring to Washington some relatively centrist freshmen who would provide a check on the most liberal wing of the party.

Guess not. They just have to say things like that to be “balanced,” even though the Republican Party is collapsing into a gang of religious nut Sarah Palin ignoramuses. The Democrats are bringing in centrists, who hold positions reflecting the majority of Americans, but somehow their moderate wing is shrinking. How do we know? Because the Republican moderate wing is shrinking!

Next sentence:

But it might claim as victims some of the few remaining Republican moderates, such as Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon and Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut, and some of the real workhorses who are more interested in legislating than grandstanding — the capable New Hampshire senator John E. Sununu, for example.

Never mind that these moderate Republicans generate no support or enthusiasm from the Republican base, it is sad that Democrats will replace them with centrists.

Republicans have decided their last, best argument is “Avoid one-party rule!” Because they voted Democrat in 2004 and 2006, right? Obviously they don’t believe it for a second. Most people are fine with one-party rule, as long as its their party. We can’t always have a divided government, and there’s a purpose to elections: politicians get to actually be in power for a little bit before people get a chance to toss them out. Republicans would have us reject Democratic control of the White House and Congress before such a thing dare be allowed to take place.

What are they most afraid of, however?

Democratic success.

If Barack Obama has a successful four years with a Democratic Congress, Republicans would feel lost and helpless, forced to readjust their extreme positions or die out for good. It’s the threat of a good example, the threat of Americans realizing, “Omigod, we have Democrats in office and things are going well!” Democrats will be able to point to how shitty things were when the GOP was in charge, and Republicans will be unable to keep screaming “Its teh JJimi Carter!” to keep Democrats out of office. And that’s the scariest thing they can imagine.

And with a Democrat President unlikely to do more than keep the Supreme Court in balance, this argument finally falls flat on its face. The pendulum must swing.


Off to D.C.!

Sep 10, 2008 in Beltway-itis

As I’ve mentioned before, Lil’ Miss Samari is doing the Nation’s Triathlon in Washington D.C. this Sunday, and I’m accompanying her to provide the all important functions of carrying things, taking pictures, and rubbing sore limbs afterwards. She raised $1900 to fight leukemia and lymphoma, and she’s been biking and swimming like a fool for several months. We’re really excited about the event and visiting D.C. We’ll post some pictures when we get back or along the way, as time permits. Mike G. and Thomas Tallis will take up the slack, and maybe that son-of-a-bitch Ali will pry himself away from his adorable daughter and pregnant wife to give us a Middle East/Pakistan update.

p.s. If anybody knows the best watering hole in D.C. to catch a drunk Congressman at, send me an e-mail at I want to know what they serve to induce Beltway-itis.


The depraved media.

Aug 27, 2008 in Beltway-itis, Chomsky, Journamalism, Politics

Brad at Sadly No! sums up our elite media’s attitude towards this election:

What’s been generally amazing to me about this convention is how much the talking heads focused on personality-based elements: “Have Barack and Hillary made up yet? Is Michelle Obama a scary, angry black woman, or is she a phony pretending not to be a scary, angry black woman? What do the Democrats have to do to prove that they don’t hate America?”

Absolutely nothing about policy, absolutely nothing about the disaster that the past eight years of right-wing rule have wrought upon the country and the world. It’s all one big soap opera for these assholes, and as long as they’re entertained, Rome can burn.

Funnily enough, like addicts, some in the media can even talk about their own depravity, even though they’re powerless to stop it:

Stephanopoulos stated bluntly, “it’s just not true that these issues are not being discussed.” He’s right, of course. They are being discussed, but in many cases, far from sight. Take the recent news out of Iraq, where withdrawal timetables are suddenly, plainly, a part of negotiations between the Bush and al Maliki governments. This development had its origins in a congressional hearing back in June, where Iraqi Parliamentarians began the steady push for U.S. withdrawal. To get that news, one had to turn to the Washington Independent. So far as I can recall, this story was not given much play in network or cable news. It was certainly never discussed on Sunday! But these hearings presciently bespoke the Iraq turning point we have arrived at today.

Can you imagine if Maliki had endorsed John McCain’s plan for endless occupation of Iraq? Bush moved to Obama’s position on Iraq qualitatively, with not much variance quantitatively (thoughts go out to the troops who will die that extra year, hopes that Obama will expedite the process). That should be an earthquake for journalists. It should be topic NUMERO F’ING UNO, the hot buzz, the big story about the ultimate vindication of what Barack Obama and the Democrats have been saying about Iraq for a long time, and…we’ve gotten pure gossip. We aren’t even treated to some blathering about how Bush taking Obama’s position and contradicting everything McCain has said about Iraq is really good for McCain. It happened, and it just failed to register. Not news. Iraq is so OVER! Let me show you some real news:

“Did you hear McCain talk smack about Obama? It was totally f’ed up! Is Obama gonna let him punk him like that?”

The media is completely uninterested in the election as a debate about policy and how to run the country. If they do care, they pretend they’re trapped in the system. They like to call themselves the fourth branch of government, but they don’t care. They’re selling advertising. A reminder of what we’re dealing with here:

(CHOMSKY:) So what we have in the first place is major corporations which are parts of even bigger conglomerates. Now, like any other corporation, they have a product which they sell to a market. The market is advertisers — that is, other businesses. What keeps the media functioning is not the audience. They make money from their advertisers. And remember, we’re talking about the elite media. So they’re trying to sell a good product, a product which raises advertising rates. And ask your friends in the advertising industry. That means that they want to adjust their audience to the more elite and affluent audience. That raises advertising rates. So what you have is institutions, corporations, big corporations, that are selling relatively privileged audiences to other businesses.

Well, what point of view would you expect to come out of this? I mean without any further assumptions, what you’d predict is that what comes out is a picture of the world, a perception of the world, that satisfies the needs and the interests and the perceptions of the sellers, the buyers and the product.

Now there are many other factors that press in the same direction. If people try to enter the system who don’t have that point of view they’re likely to be excluded somewhere along the way. After all, no institution is going to happily design a mechanism to self-destruct. It’s not the way institutions function. So they’ll work to exclude or marginalize or eliminate dissenting voices or alternative perspectives and so on because they’re dysfunctional, they’re dysfunctional to the institution itself.

Now there are other media too whose basic social role is quite different: it’s diversion. There’s the real mass media-the kinds that are aimed at, you know, Joe Six Pack — that kind. The purpose of those media is just to dull people’s brains.

The Republicans have found this system exceptionally advantageous to their needs, bitching about the “Librul media” aside. They do not have the public on their side when it comes to the issues, and so they need this distraction, these diversions from the issues. When the media gossips, Republicans do better because they’ve engineered their campaigns around avoiding the issues. The entire structure of their discourse is built around making sure no substantial conversation actually happens. Thirty second soundbites are good for advertisers, and the Republicans know their market, playing them like any amoral salesman would.

Have you ever worked in sales? People who have know it’s about figuring out how to game people, how to say exactly the right thing at the right time that will manipulate them to give the desired response. You may end up saying things that aren’t true, but it’s not your fault because you have bills to pay and you need that commission. And if you game them into signing what you want them to sign, you tell yourself, “I’m giving them what they want. I’m not culpable.” Our media behaves the same way, acting like journalists to the extent that it will drive headlines, ratings, revenue, and correspondingly their own star. They go through the motions of doing their job, but in their minds they always carry the lessons they’ve learned. They remember what got other journalists ahead, and what got them promoted. The barking from editors…about readers, editions sold, ad revenue. They don’t want to say their readers are stupid, but they will write stupid pieces and mutter to themselves, “This is what interests people.” The art of sales is to know people are able to be fooled, yet never admit you are fooling them, unless you have figured out a way to fool them still.

By understanding how our media works, we can better neutralize the damage they do and game them in return to give us what we want: for them to do their goddamned jobs. I have a simple wish for the election: that it be about substance and policy at least as much as it is about personal gossip and playing favorites. Is it so much to ask for the media to acknowledge that the Democrats are giving the people the policies they want? Or are they so threatened because, unlike them, we give with genuine intent?


P.S. Forgot to tell this tale of Beltway media incest! Did you help George W. Bush screw up America? You get a job, Sir!

Furious competition in the Beltway!

Jul 18, 2008 in Barack Obama, Beltway-itis, Clueless Conservatives, Environment

Krauthammer says he can out-stupid Maureen Dowd!

After all, in the words of (Obama’s) own slogan, “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” which, translating the royal “we,” means: ” I am the one we’ve been waiting for.”

There’s no limit to what you can figure out about people if you change words in their sentences. This totally works, and all of you can try this at home. Watch me:

Who does (this uppity Negro) think he is?

Works wonders!

We are getting to know. Redeemer of our uninvolved, uninformed lives. Lord of the seas. And more. As he said on victory night, his rise marks the moment when “our planet began to heal.” As I recall — I’m no expert on this — Jesus practiced his healing just on the sick. Obama operates on a larger canvas.

Get it? If you want to do something for the environment, you think you’re bigger and better than Jesus. New ancient Hebrew texts, however, shed little light on Jesus’ preference for offshore drilling, but I’m sure we can work something out. Let me pretend to be a rightwinger for a few minutes here:

Let’s see, I need the offshore drilling because our candidates are high and dry without oil dollars and my opponents do so well with the public on environmental issues…and I’m completely willing to stick Jesus in the cracks of any argument I can dream up, so…

Liberal fascist socialist environmental wackos are trying to tell us our sins can be forgiven if we only embrace the light, literally, with solar power and other alternative sources of energy. Well, we aren’t sun gods anymore, we worship Jesus who dispensed with these worldly affairs and spoke of a higher kingdom, so we will toil the earth as the Bible says without fear of intervention…um…

Nah, can’t do it. Well, for the real bottom-scrapers it would do, but I started to feel my brain imploding due to the absence of shame so I had to stop. Krauthammer fears no such thing.