Psst! Hey morons! He hasn’t taken office yet!

On the evening of November 4th, when it became clear early on that Barack Obama would become the next president of the United States in a landslide win, anyone perusing conservative blogs of the obscure, primitive sort noticed a disturbing and unmistakable unity: These people weren’t just upset that their candidate was getting shellacked, they were practically ready to take to the streets in mass numbers and start shooting over it.
I remember plenty of Democrats who were disappointed after the 2004 election, but don’t recall any them engaging in the same kind of baldly violent and divisive rhetoric that wingers seem compelled to ejaculate. It could just be that Democrats tend to be better educated and therefore more capable of subtlety, but I don’t believe this accounts for much of the difference. No, the ineluctable fact is that the Republican Party is a lightning rod for hot-headed imbeciles.
Well, the gnashing of right-leaning teeth and the braying of angry, nonsensical assertions from the hilljack crowd is at nowhere near the level it was just over a month ago. It’s far worse.


A very basic fact that escapes all of these startlingly clueless yammerers is that Barack Obama has not yet taken office. He hasn’t had a chance to screw up. He has not implemented a single bit of policy. He has as much say in what the president decides to do right now as I do. Yet this doesn’t stop the members of the mob from howling about all of the horrible things that will befall America starting yesterday thanks to the liberal scum who failed to see the utility of putting a cranky old fuck in the Oval Office alongside the glowing intellectual acumen of Sarah Palin. (The damage done to the U.S. in the past eight years and the foul legacy Obama will inherit is obviously inconsequential in the “minds” of these people.)
My archetypal right-wing cretin is Gribbit. (Click on that link at your peril–another thing common to dipshit bloggers is their fondness for countless widgets and bad scripts that slow visitors’ computers to the point that they are operating at about the processing speed of the offending bloggers’ brains.) Every now and then I have a visit to his little volcano of hate to see if he’s suffered a nasty knock on the head and started making at least a little sense, and of course I instead discover each time that he appears to have upped his consumption of fluids from the Love Canal or infused whatever dank room he blogs from with a high concentration of ether. He is such a rambling font of bad cliches and Fox News/Michelle Malkin hand-me-downs that it is almost quaint. He is a cartoon character who creates new blog categories just to emphasize how furious he is (“Barack Hussein Obama” isn’t enough, so he’s also got “Barack Hussein Obama lies” to go with “Libtards on parade,” “Homosexual agenda,” “Lunatic Lefties,” “Humor,” and “Stupidity,” the last two being especially funny for reasons that obviously escape Gribbit) .
If you dare hit the link, scroll down to the story about recent murders in Chicago. You see, Gribbit is claiming that Obama is out of line in speaking ill of the war in Iraq, because there were 23 murders in his own hometown in the month of November. The implication of Obama saying anything bad about the war effort is that he plainly doesn’t care about these murders that happened in his very own coutry. That’s right, Gribbit said that. And he means it. And he has said other, equally stupid things, and he means those, too. But as colossal an affront to basic perception as Gribbit’s blog may be, there are countless other shrewish specimens just like him perched at their keyboards at this very moment, tap-tap-tapping out the same kind of proudly illogical tripe as their beetle brows wrinkle in blind consternation.
You don’t have to like the fact that Obama was elected, but he’s going to be your leader. Give the man a chance to fail, people. Better yet: Give him a chance to become president. If that seems like too tall an order, then take a massive dose of Xanax every morning so that you’re out of commission until Inauguration Day and can therefore avoid the risk of winding up either on a locked psychiatric ward or in a coronary care unit in the interim. Your four regular blog readers won’t miss you, in no small part because they too will be zonked to the tips of their tits on benzodiazepines.
Then again, why should I act surprised at any of this? Most people are thoroughgoing idiots, and those types of people are either more prone to irrational outbursts of anger or simply less equipped to deal with it in a manner than allows them to move forward or at least hide or sublimate it. Go for a run, buy a kickboxing bag, play a violent video game for twelve hours straight, find a better porn site than the ones you’ve already bookmarked, or jump in front of a speeding city bus. But Christ in a caboose, show some pride and quit blathering to yourself on the damned Internet in a way that only makes you look more infantile and ignorant with every aggrieved word in the event that someone actually discovers your shit-stained electronic cave.

Advertisements
  1. #1 by Teaspoon on December 8, 2008 - 10:51 pm

    Couldn’t have said it better myself.

  2. #2 by mgordon on December 8, 2008 - 11:22 pm

    How dare Gibbit not support the president in a time of war. Why does he hate Amurica so much?

  3. #3 by Kim on December 9, 2008 - 5:20 am

    I’ve already seen my first “Impeach Obama” bumper sticker. I can’t quite figure out which definition of “impeach” is applicable before the president commits a crime or in fact takes office.

  4. #4 by Michael on December 9, 2008 - 7:35 am

    I submit that you have either forgotten what the liberal “blogs of the obscure, primitive sort” said in November 2004, or you never bothered to look. There were calls for violent revolution from them then. Many of them were deleted from The Daily Kos once conservatives pointed them out. (This is not to defend either side: Both are unhinged, but liberals are not inherently better-behaved than conservatives.)
    There was a different, more wide-spread phenomenon in 2004 too: Whatever happened to all those people who promised to move to Canada after Bush was re-elected? Did their Hollywood neighbors convince them to stay and prop up property values for a while longer?

  5. #5 by Orac on December 9, 2008 - 7:45 am

    On the evening of November 4th, when it became clear early on that Barack Obama would become the next president of the United States in a landslide win

    Um, a six percent margin of victory is hardly a “landslide win.” True, it was more impressive in the Electoral College, but even so not that enormous by historical standards.

  6. #6 by Kevin Beck on December 9, 2008 - 8:03 am

    Michael: Perhaps a little off point, but I don’t know that I’d call what I’ve seen listed as the first or second most widely read blog on the Internet as obscure. I actually tend to read less heavily trafficked blogs no matter what the slant or the subject, so if there were calls for violence on Kos, I missed them. Someone else will have to sum up what went down.
    As far as people claiming they would move to Canada, who knows? I don’t know anyone who stated this in any sincerity, but of those who did, maybe they followed through. Or maybe they were turned away at the border. Or maybe they were full of shit, like most people. I’d move to Canada just to do it–I’ve spent a lot of time there and it’s a nice place.
    O-man: It was 7.2%, and compared to the nail-biters of 2000 and 2004, it was a landslide win by the (oddball, in my opinion) standard used to determine who went home happy–a 2 to 1 margin in electoral-college votes. I know the popular vote spelled a much closer race, but it always does. And when you think about it, a 7.2% difference is pretty damned big gap as well when n=130,000,000.
    You’re right, though–this lopsidedness is nothing new; 2000 and 2004 were close, but every election before that going all the way back to 1980 was at least as much of a blow-out as this year’s, and it’s hard to forget Mondale winning only his home state’s 13 tallies to Reagan’s 525 in 1984. Ouch.

  7. #7 by D. C. Sessions on December 9, 2008 - 9:15 am

    I remember plenty of Democrats who were disappointed after the 2004 election, but don’t recall any them engaging in the same kind of baldly violent and divisive rhetoric that wingers seem compelled to ejaculate.

    Barring the gun-nut-notes, I do. Went on for years, too.

  8. #8 by Kevin Beck on December 9, 2008 - 10:26 am

    I admit that I have no use for the Daily Kos. I also don’t read Malkin or any of the other high-traffic snake pits. On either side, it’s nothing but theatrics on the part of the bloggers for the sake of either taming the sycophants or whipping them into a frenzy. The Dems I know hated Bush bitterly; I just happened to know of none that spun out weirdball conspiracy theories like the Gribbitian crowd, nor any who were as gullible. But I don’t get out much.
    Bottom line is, there are plenty of well-informed Republicans, and a lot of them, in fact (in my circle) turned away from McCain this time around. But the fringe element is always drawn toward the GOP because they perceive it as a haven for their extremist, ill-informed views on religion, climate change, race, and blowing shit up. Again, this is not a broad-brush characterization, but read the G-Man’s site and I’ll show you 10 more like it. Mind you, I’m not complaining; I’ve been wanking to the freakaroos for years.
    Anyway, comparison in the original post of this election to the last one was actually very shitty in light of my post title and theme, because four years ao the guy who got elected already held the office. I don’t doubt that the loons on the left were out in force, making many of the same noises out dear Gribbit does. But at least they had something to go on.

  9. #9 by hopper3011 on December 9, 2008 - 12:14 pm

    “Many of them were deleted from The Daily Kos once conservatives pointed them out.”
    A lot of them were posted by “conservatives” in the first place – that sort of thing was fairly well debunked as an attempt to undermine the credibility of DK. Colbert said some pretty scathing things about it at the time.
    http://www.whereistheoutrage.net/wordpress/2007/09/23/republicans-troll-for-hate/

%d bloggers like this: