Republicans Kind of Suck … Which Is Why They Will Win Huge in November

Written by Frank J. Fleming

This election season has been hard on pundits. The Democrats are going to get massacred in November, and it’s really obvious to pretty much everyone exactly why — which makes writing political commentary like trying to come up with a long-winded explanation for why two plus two equals four.

Here’s my attempt.

Doesn’t it suck when you have a dog that barks all night? Everyone hates that. It’s annoying. It can even drive you pretty crazy if it goes on long enough. People hate that.

Know what also sucks? A zombie apocalypse. That’s when society collapses due to some spreading zombie virus, and most of your friends and family are dead, and you have to scrounge for food to survive while the walking dead threaten you around every corner. People also hate that.

So, we’re all agreed that a barking dog and a zombie apocalypse both suck. Everyone following so far?

Now let’s look at what led us to the political situation we’re in. During the second term of the Bush presidency people just got fed up with Republicans. They were idiots, they were no good at the whole fiscal conservatism thing (which is sort of the whole point of them), we had these wars that seemed to be going nowhere, and the economy was beginning to fail. They sucked, and people were sick and tired of them.

Thus people turned to the Democrats. And Obama.

Let’s just say they also sucked.

AMERICANS: “So, the economy is pretty bad and there’s high employment. You think you can do something about that?”

DEMOCRATS AND OBAMA: “We can spend a trillion dollars we don’t have on pork and stuff.”

AMERICANS: “No … that’s not what we want. We’d really like you not to do that.”

DEMOCRATS: “You’re stupid. We’re doing it anyway.”

AMERICANS: “That’s not going to help us get jobs!”

DEMOCRATS: “Sure it will; millions of them … though they may be invisible. You’ll have to trust us they exist. And guess what else we’ll do: We’ll create a giant new government program to take over health care.”

AMERICANS: “That has nothing to do with jobs!”

DEMOCRATS: “We don’t care about that anymore. We really want a giant new health care program. We’re sure you’ll love it.”

AMERICANS: “Don’t pass that bill. You hear me? Absolutely do not pass that bill.”

DEMOCRATS: “Believe me; you’ll love it. It has … well, I don’t know what exactly is in the bill, but we’re sure it’s great.”

AMERICANS: “Listen to me: DO. NOT. PASS. THAT. BILL.”

DEMOCRATS: “You’re not the boss of me! We’re doing it anyway!”

AMERICANS: “Look what you did! Now the economy is way worse, we’re even deeper in debt, and we have a bunch of new laws we don’t want!”

DEMOCRATS: “You’re racist.”

AMERICANS: “Wha … How is that racist?”

DEMOCRATS: “Now you’re getting violent! Stop being violent and racist, you ignorant hillbillies! And remember to vote Democrat in November.”

So the Democrats sucked. But not just plain old, usual politician sucked, but epic levels of suck where it’s hard to find an analogue in human history that conveys the same level of suckitude. It was sheer incompetence plus arrogance — and those things do not complement each other well. We’re talking sucking that distorts time and space like a black hole.

It’s Godzilla-smashing-through-a-city level of suck — but a really patronizing Godzilla who says you’re just too stupid and hateful to see all the buildings he’s saved or created as he smashes everything apart. Or, to use Obama’s favorite analogy, you have a car stuck in ditch, so you call the mechanic, but the only tool he brings with him is a sledgehammer. And then he smashes your car to pieces and charges you $100,000 for his service. Finally, he calls you racist for complaining. Obama and the Democrats have been so awful, it’s hard for the human brain to even comprehend.

But the Democrats will counter that the Republicans also suck. And while this is true, it’s not really going to help them. As I pointed out before, both a dog incessantly barking and a zombie apocalypse are things that everyone would agree suck. Yet no one during a zombie apocalypse, while hiding out in a boarded up mall, would turn to the other survivors and say, “We don’t want to kill all the zombies; then we’d have to go back to being woken up at night by that annoying dog next door.” But this is the best argument the Democrats can come up with. “Remember how awful the Republicans and Bush were? You hated them. You don’t want to go back to that.” Yes, why would people want to go back to when 6% unemployment was considered high?

People do remember how much the Republicans suck, and they know where it tops out … and that is nowhere near as bad as the Democrats are today. Like with the barking dog, it’s annoying, but you know it’s not going to cause the collapse of civilization as we know it. Not so with the zombie apocalypse; who knows how bad that could get if left to continue? Same with the Democrats and Obama; people have never dealt with anything this horrible their entire lives, and they aren’t that curious to see how much worse it can be.

So the Republicans kinda suck, and that’s why they’re going to win huge this November. Because in the land of epic, mega, ultra, apocalyptic levels of sucking, those who kinda suck are king. Or at least are going to win in a landslide.

Because once the zombie apocalypse is over, the annoying neighbor dog is going to be music to your ears.

For a little while, at least.

Frank J. Fleming writes political humor at IMAO.us and bought a shock collar to keep his dog from barking.

Soda, Obesity, and Taxes

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

A new UCLA study examined sugary drinks and their effect on state spending and consumers' health.

$41 billion - Amount spent treating obesity in California each year.

41 percent - Kids ages 2-11 who drink at least one soda every day.

62 percent - Adolescents 12-17 who drink at least one soda every day.

39 pounds - Amount of sugar consumed over one year if you drink one soda a day.

17 teaspoons - Amount of sugar in a 20-ounce serving of soda.

278 calories - Increased number Americans consume each day compared with 30 years ago.

43 percent - Share of new calories attributable to soda.

Source: "Bubbling Over: Soda Consumption and Its Link to Obesity in California" by UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and the California Center for Public Health Advocacy

The full article states that they are considering taxing Soda (pop to you Washingtonians) in San Francisco to help pay for an exercise program and a media campaign to discourage soda drinking.  The tax would be levied on stores that sell soda, not on the individual sale of soda itself.

Now, as a Dr. Pepper / Pepsi addict, I actually don't think this is a horrible thing.  We tax cigarrettes and alchohol very heavily, largely to discourage their use.  Would it have any real effect?  I'm not sure.  I think you'd have to actually tax the sale of individual drinks to get anyone's attention, or to see any affects.

Arkansas, Missouri, Tennessee and Virginia apparently already have a similar tax.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that adding a tax of three cents per 12-ounce serving to sweetened drinks would generate $24 billion over the next four years.

In His Own Words...

Myth Busters: The Public Option Health Care Plan

Myth #1: The administration is trying to "run" health care by offering a Public Option health care plan.

Fact: Wrong. Taken from the President's own website:

"The American people are too often offered two extremes - government-run health care with higher taxes or letting the insurance companies operate without rules. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe both of these extremes are wrong, and that’s why they’ve proposed a plan that strengthens employer coverage, makes insurance companies accountable and ensures patient choice of doctor and care without government interference.

Under the plan, if you like your current health insurance, nothing changes..."

Offering a low cost solution (aka, a "Public Option") for people who do not have insurance does not equal "running" the nations health care, nor does it equal a Socialist attempt to control a sector of the economy.

If you like your insurance coverage, then enjoy it, and quit complaining, because you would get to keep it!

Myth #2: The quality of your current health care will decline because of a Public Option health care plan.

Fact: Again, if you have health insurance through your employer, or a privately purchased plan, enjoy it! You get to keep it! Nobody is going to tell you that you have to give it up! Nobody is telling your super great doctors that they have to stop treating you! Your quality of health care will not decline. If anything, it may get better as insurance companies are forced to adjust their prices in order to keep your service.

Myth #3: This administration wants to decrease competition among insurance companies, and interfere with Capitalism, forcing pharmaceutical companies to stop conducting research, thus leading to all our demise.

Fact: Again, a stated goal straight from the President's own website:

"Reform the insurance market to increase competition by taking on anticompetitive activity that drives up prices without improving quality of care."

I believe that when he says he wants to "increase" competition...that means he is supporting Capitalism. "Increase" is the opposite of "decrease".

One major problem with the insurance industry is that it is already very ANTICOMPETITIVE. One way of changing this is by offering a less expensive alternative that will increase competition within the industry, with the goal of bringing everyone's prices down.

As far as drug companies go, let's not glorify them too much. Yes they do a lot of good research. They also keep costs of their drugs insanely high by stifling competition from foreign companies, and from companies who can make the same drugs for less money (ie, generic drugs).

You may say, "well they developed it, so they should get to charge what they want". Right. But in a free market economy, if I can figure out a way to make your widget as good or better, and sell it for cheaper, then I should be able to sell my widget too, and let the market decide which ones they want to buy. That drives prices down. That's capitalism.

What the drug companies currently do is called monopolizing. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods. Those who have studied American history know that we generally do not like monopolies...so why do we tolerate it from the drug companies?

And uh...as far as Capitalism producing the best research and breakthroughs in technology...the government funds most of the research that goes on all across the nation.


Myth #4: The quality of a Public Option plan would probably suck!

Opinion: Maybe it will! Who knows. But for someone with no insurance at all, it might not be that bad.

And since the stated goal of the President is to offer a plan based on what's offered to members of Congress, it may not be as bad as you think.

As someone who has benefitted from a government provided health care plan for their entire life, I've got no complaints. Any time I've needed to see a doctor, I've been able to. I was born under a government health care plan. Both my children were born under a government health care plan. My family gets medications in a timely manner from a government health care plan. As a kid I was treated for broken bones, lacerations, infections, and viruses under a government health care plan.

At times I and my family have needed to see specialists...I've never had a problem with this.

The plan covers immunizations (and other "well-child" care), vision, dental, prescriptions, pregnancies, mental health issues, and plenty of other medical services.

It may not be as all inclusive as other plans out there, and yes, there is a certain amount of red tape I have to go to in some cases. But to someone who's got nothing, it's an amazing plan. And again, I've never had any problems.

Myth #5: A government-run insurance program would have an unfair advantage and ultimately drive insurers out of business.

Opinion: Maybe. But government options already exist in multiple sectors of the economy, competing with private industry on a daily basis, and private industry does fine. To name a few:

• Education (public schools vs private/homeschooling)
  
• Security (police vs private security)
  
• Shipping (USPS vs UPS/FEDEX, etc...)
  
• Scientific Research
  
• Travel (Amtrak, subways vs planes, buses, etc...)
  
• Recreation (National park service vs Disney, etc...)
  
• Books (Libraries vs Barnes & Noble, etc...

The point is, that just because a public option is available in an economic market, it does not automatically mean that private industry will crumble. It's just another option...


What other myths are out there? Please, let me bust them for you!