Friday, March 27, 2009

Douche Caucus Formed; Plan to Act Like Douches

After 8 Years of doing fuck all, guess who suddently remembers they're a Senator?

President Barack Obama and Democratic congressional leaders always knew they would face Republican opposition to their agenda on Capitol Hill. Now they face another hurdle: a newly formed coalition of 16 moderate Democratic senators led by Indiana's Evan Bayh.

Mr. Bayh and his group are well positioned to force changes in the president's budget and on other contentious issues such as health care and climate change. Their stated goal is to rein in deficits and to protect business interests.

A group to protect business interests? What a relief! There clearly hasn't been anyone sticking up for them over the last 30 years.

So how do you spin forming a group that's true motives are unpopular and purpose is already served by the Republican party?

Recite literally every "moderate" cliche in the book, and wait for a gushing column from David Broader.
Lead douche Evan Bayh:
"Our group seeks to work collaboratively with the Obama administration and Senate leadership to make sure legislation is crafted in a practical way that will solve people's problems,"
We want to work collaboratively with the Obama administration so much that we've formed a caucus to obstruct their agenda! So other than "being practical", what principles do you stand for?
"We are not ideologues. We are pragmatic. We are not strident partisans. We care about our country more than our party."
Yeah, we don't want to be ideologues, those guys suck. We just want to create a group that blindly protects business interests no matter how much it damages our country or party. That's called being pragmatic.
“We really do need to change business as usual,” Mr. Bayh said in an interview Monday. “People want results.”

People do want to change business as usual, and people definitely want results. Although if last year proved anything, the one thing people don't want is Evan Bayh.

But according to Bayh, what "the people" want is a group of douchebags to obstruct the person that the actual people actually elected! What do you say to those who oppose this group?
"We literally have no agenda," Bayh shot back. "How can they be threatened by a group that has taken no policy positions?"
How can you form a group that has no agenda and taken no policy positions? If there isn't a policy goal, then why the fuck would you form a group? What do you discuss at your meetings? How to be more pragmatic? These people make my head hurt.

So what's left? Hey Evan, why don't you give your group a really clever name that has literally no meaning whatsoever?
"Call us the Practical Caucus, or what have you," Mr. Bayh said.
David Broader, the ball's in your court.


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. douches, the whole lot of them. everywhere you turn, nothing but douches. sometimes it's easy to forget just how full of shit politicians really are. and then things like this happen. unbelievable.

  3. "We have no agenda! We have literally nothing that we want to accomplish, no goals or ideals or thoughts! We don't even know what we're doing, or why! Who are we? Who am I?! God help me please."

  4. "While this might turn highways in many southern states into dangerous warzones, Obama has rightfully noted that the results will be “fucking sweet."

  5. What the fuck have you assholes done with L"L Cool"South?

  6. Practical Conservative3/28/09, 3:31 PM

    So I'm reposting this here so it doesn't get too buried with all the new posts. This is my response to J.N. 's question of what I agree with you guys on from a True Conservative perspective:

    Thank you for the welcome.

    Good question. The issue that immediately jumps out is Gay Rights. I am infuriated when republicans talk about minimal government interference, but then propose an AMENDMENT defining marriage! That is not the government's role.

    Personally, I don't have an opinion one way or the other. Several of my good friends are gay, and I don't see any harm in them being married. Its just a word if we treat it as one, right?

    I do have a BIG problem with extremists on my side of the spectrum, who want to demonize, and spout hateful rhetoric using the Lord's name to justify such acts. It's TOO much, and too reminiscent of the inquisition.

    This, I believe, is one of the reasons why so many honest conservatives have left the party, because it means immediate association with hate and bigotry and "backwoods" America. An image, I feel, that will further alienate America.

    This is too much like Southern Democrats before the mid 70's, and their staunch refusal to recognize Civil Rights. You can only demonize and strip rights from a person for so long before you need to grow up or face annihilation.

    Newer conservatives, I hope, are starting to get this. Look, I think that you guys are wrong on matters of National Security, the War on Terror, etc.; just based on what I believe the threats to America are. I do agree with you on the need for Greener Energy sources and stricter pollution standards, but I equate this with national security and public health. Regulation, is not necessarily a bad thing. (Especially if We were in power :)

  7. Practical Conservative-
    Hey, glad you're still with us here. I'm starting to wonder if there's some gadget we could add to the site to preserve ongoing discussions, jumping from post to post isn't a very good way to do it.

    Clearly agreed on pretty much all accounts there with gay rights, again I don't think you'll get any arguments from any of us about that.

    When you say you disagree about National Security and the war on terror, is that to say that you support enhanced interrogation policies and the original/later justifications for the Iraq War, or something else?