“Obama Should Be Impeached.”

October 28, 2010
Official presidential portrait of Barack Obama...

Image via Wikipedia

Roughly a third of self-declared Republicans agree with the statement “Obama should be impeached.” But what does that even mean?

First off, not all Republicans are equal. The third being referenced here are the ones composing the Tea Party, certainly the most baffling and misunderstood group in America today. I think the biggest confusion with them, though, is that they don’t speak literally. They speak emotionally. So when they say something like “Obama should be impeached,” they don’t mean that he has committed a criminal offense which is beyond his reach as President and should therefore be subject to inquiry. They don’t know what ‘impeached’ means. This was apparent when everyone was outraged that after Clinton was impeached, he still got to be President.

What they mean is this: “the emotion that we had towards Clinton, the emotion that the other side had towards Bush, we have that emotion towards Obama.” Clinton was impeached; liberals demanded that Bush be impeached; therefore, Obama should be impeached. The English language isn’t built for these folks to be able to express what they want to express, but they get pretty close when they say things like “I want my country back.” It’s not an attack on race, as many accuse it of being. It’s an expression of emotion.

But this idea that Tea Partiers are stupid or uneducated or don’t know the Constitution—it’s not true or false, it’s moot. They don’t work in a world of facts and semantics. They are happy when they’re euphoric and they’re angry when they’re not, and so long as Obama is in office, anything that gives them a bad feeling gets assigned negative words; they don’t care which negative words they use, so long as the degree of emotion is accurate, so they just use whatever words were used in that context before.


The Silly Season Begins

May 9, 2010

TVMI’m starting to enjoy the political season as much as college football season, if only because it’s the only competition more detached from reality and reason than the BCS. The mass exodus of incumbents is fucking fascinating. Not only Republicans– while the Democrats are resigning en masse out of disgust for what passes as a constituency these days, but all the Republicans being pushed out by Tea Party candidates.

Now, I am not one of those people who believe that Tea Partiers are stupid or racist. But they are ignorant, and this proves it for two reasons:

1. If you want someone representing you in Congress, regardless of ideology, buy off an incumbent. Not only do incumbents have a staggering re-election rate, but Congress is not a Democracy- seniority is everything. This concept of throwing out 20-year veterans and replacing them with random businessmen who promise to spend money on anything just doesn’t work. They go into the general election with no wind at their backs and the animosity of the huge contributors that had invested millions of dollars In the candidate that just got pushed out, and the few who win will accomplish nothing for two years and get voted out in 2012.

2. Polls only reflect the opinions of the people who were polled. A poll of 1000 people could produce unanimous results and still only prove that .0003% of Americans agree with something. There is one statistic that people tend to ignore, and it’s staggering: 80% of Americans don’t respond to polls. Add to this that many polls are done by phone, and you’re already limiting the demographic to people who still own a home phone. In 2010, that’s an overwhelmingly conservative and denialist group. But all those people who don’t give the time of day to questions like “does Obama’s Muslim heritage lead you to believe that American churches are at risk?” will still vote. In huge numbers. Especially if the leading candidate has ads on TV promising to cut funding for schools, infrastructure, and police. People do vote out of fear, but they’re far more scared of Anarchy than they are of Socialism.