Perhaps it is obvious. Perhaps people have been saying this all along.
But I never believed it was reality. I always thought that the liberal pols were actually that stupid and held to ideology without regard to any rudimentary survival instinct.
What if even they now realize that cuts have to be made – awful radical dramatic painful ones – and see that they have danger on the right and danger on the left?
The conservatives will never trust a liberal. Ever. The liberals will only support them if they engage in what they may very well realize is political suicide.
It would explain the couldn’t-do-a-thing performance when the Democrats had control last year and needed to work on a budget – but didn’t. It would explain why they have mostly rolled over on cuts (inadequate cuts but it’s a start) by the Republicans.
What if the Democrat pols actually believe that ideology must be set aside and that severe cuts need to be made?
They couldn’t be seen as supporting that viewpoint – it would be political suicide amongst the liberals who still think that progressive policies and government-driven spend-your-way-into-prosperity practices are valid. They would never be viewed as reliable by those on the right – because of the almost universal “once-a-always-a axiom”†.
† I am a firm believer that except in very rare circumstances we never really change. We become more of what we really are as we age. Sure, there are examples – such as Paul in the bible – but very rarely do we actually change. Sure, the Democrats might face up to a new reality and new facts, but given the chance they would go back to where they were before. Yes, I am cynical. So what?
So, Democrats can bitch and whine and protest-too-much about Tea Partiers, but at the end of the day they are really in a bad spot. Go forward and enrage your base? Hang back and enrage the “independents”, whatever they are? Hope that things FAIL and be accused of being complicit or not acting when it was really needed (months ago when it was achievable or more effort now)? Hope that things succeed and then later be seen as the anchor to achieving really good things if it proves to be the hard slog that logic says it must be?
Democrats don’t even need to take another step and they already stink like a three-day-old fish.
I figure some believe but the powerful ones don’t. They’re just conmen.
That’s why Jim Moran, Kucinich and Maurice Hinchey don’t get commitee chairs.
Nice try, but I’m still boycotting.
Good day sir.
Damn. You give me no choice but to start preparation on the boob-bomb.
Now I’m left wondering if silicone or natural is the best way to go. I guess with Manhattan they did both flavors but I’m not sure we have that luxury.
Gonna take a lot of serious research…
I may take a lot of hits and eye-rolling from Cruel Wife, but it’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make.
God intended us guys to oogle boobs, CW! The proof is simple:
We men have two eyes. Women are given two boobs – one for each eye.
See?
*Another seemingly insoluble problem that crumbles in the face of ooGcM ingenuity!*
And you know what?
No matter where we go, they seem to be staring at us.
**nods vigorously**
ooGcM-
Men have two eyes and women have two ta-ta’s while women have two eyes and men only have one hoo-ha. However, every woman knows that they STILL have to keep both eyes on their man lest their man’s eyes go straying to too many other ta-ta’s. (Readies handbag to bash LK in the back of the head for ogling too many ta-ta’s.)
Oh dear. I see she’s going to be unreasonable about this…
It’s still a sacrifice I’m willing to make to bring Brother Veeshir back into the fold.
All I need to do is find *one* perfect hooter.
Now, I know Jamie Lee has two of ’em… world class, too… hmmm.
LK: you ask, I find. Here’s your *one* perfect hooter:
You are at least partly evil, mrmacs.
’nuff said.
All I need to do is find *one* perfect hooter.
Is that a “Veeshir only has one eye” joke?
If so, well…..
It’s a good one actually. I laughed.
I love a good multi-layered joke.
It also refers to only needing one to photoshop to make a boob-bomb.
Now, don’t you have some boycotting you need to be out doing?
Nah, its to supposedly placate me. If he keeps one eye looking soulfully at me while ogling with the other, then he thinks I can’t get too upset. After all, he isn’t giving the offending set of ta-ta’s his undivided attention, so of course I can’t be upset, right?
It is very unsettling in the least, having his eyes going two different directions with completely different expressions. It makes me think of Marty Feldman in Young Frankenstein…
“Igor, help me with the bags…”
“Soitenly, you take the blonde, I’ll take the one with the turban.” (growls as he chomps down on her fur stole)
Or even more appropriate from Young Frankenstein:
“My, what a lovely set of knockers”
“Why thank you”