Donk Delirium

For some reason I can’t adequately explain, I clicked on a link to Kevin Drum’s blog. What do I find? Yet another howler presented by somebody shilling way too hard for the donks. I can’t resist the comedy gold mine that magically appears before my eyes when some donk says libertarians are welcome to join the party. The argument used this time is a mixture of outright lying and specious logic. My favorite is the opening canard:

We don’t rack up massive deficits without good purpose (the last one we racked up was to fight and win World War II).

Umm, yeah. You can’t actually make that claim with a straight face, can you? You don’t seriously think I’m that stupid, do you? Oh, the shades of your former party loyalists are truly forgotten. Refresher high school civics lesson: the Congress holds the purse strings in this country, dumbass. For 40 years prior to 1994, the donks held a majority in both chambers. Ergo, any deficit that existed in those years was, at a bare minimum, passed by at least some donks. To claim your party never ran a deficit since WWII is to lie. I can think of no other appropriate word for it.

We find ways to topple and imprison genocidal dictators like Milosovich at relatively low cost — we would have been more effective with Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

Well, I can go back as far as Vietnam and ask how well that worked out in terms of toppling regimes at relatively low cost. I’d ask LBJ or JFK, but , alas, they are no more. Why don’t you go look up Bobby McNamara and discuss the issue of donk effectiveness with him? For more recent history, I could just point out that the claim you would have been more effective is belied by the fact that for 8 years, the donk administration did nothing about either individual you mention.

We would be encouraging embryonic stem cell research, not seeking a global United Nations ban (which, thankfully, we "lost" most recently, 79-80).

Or at least you’d like to think you would. Depending on how well it polls, of course. I’ll just point out that "encouraging", in this context, means "spending federal money on". Here’s a little hint for all you donks and donk apologists. When you’re trying to convince libertarians that you might be worth supporting, a promise to be more profligate with federal funds is not the right tactic to take.

We don’t believe Tom DeLay should make life’s intensely difficult choices for your daughter or your dying parent.

The idea that donks don’t want Tom DeLay (R-Me) to make life’s intensely difficult choices for people I have no problem believing. The only catch is that I don’t want Hilary Clinton (D-Carpetbagger) or Ted Kennedy (D-Manslaughter) or any other agent of the government to make them either. I am, judging by every shred of available evidence, more qualified and more competent to make decisions about my life. I don’t want to trade Tom DeLay for whatever putz the donks have available this week. All y’all need to leave me (and everyone else) the hell alone.

The efenants pay lip service to the idea of a smaller, less intrusive government bound by the powers enumerated in the Constitution. The donks can’t even be bothered. Plus, I have to put up with asshats like Andrew Tobias lying to me about his party to win me over. Yeah, that’ll work. At least his tagline about "Buckets of Propaganda" appears valid.