Nominate the Most Hilarious Post-Election Hissy Fit
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; send your tips here.]
At the risk of blatantly ripping off an idea from Popehat, let me suggest that everyone here find the most hilarious response to the election and link to it in the comments. And if this story is any indicator, there should be a lot of nominees:
A staffer for a congressional Democrat who came up short on Tuesday reports that a team of about five people stopped by their offices this morning to talk about payroll, benefits, writing a résumé, and so forth, with staffers who are now job hunting.
But one of the staffers was described as a “counselor” to help with the emotional aspect of the loss — and a section in the packet each staffer was given dealt with the stages of grief (for instance, Stage One being anger, and so on).
“It was like it was about death,” the staffer said. “It was bizarre.” The staffer did say the portions about the benefits and résumé writing were instructive.
The teams weren’t sent by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office. Two people have suggested it may have been the Clerk’s Office or Human Resources.
While Tuesday was definitely a major loss for the Democrats, I hadn’t heard it cast in a stages-of-grief way before.
(That was from Politico, but no linky for internet bullies. So you can read it over at Hot Air.)
So comment away.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Mr. Worthing:
Does this count?
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/09/msnbcs-dylan-ratigan-ted-rall-call-for-violent-revolution/
Extra credit for shameless hypocrisy.
Eric Blair (ad3ef3) — 11/9/2010 @ 6:42 amI would nominate the grief counselor as the most ridiculous, but the Dems have done that before.
JD (97a58b) — 11/9/2010 @ 6:45 amMaddow’s “WE’RE NOT A POLITICAL GROUP WE’RE NEWS ORGANIZATION!!!!” special pleading has to be near the top of the list.
Another Chris (2d8013) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:10 amAny of the Tim Wise columns should be included. Racists.
JD (97a58b) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:12 amRall would have to find out which piece is the trigger first.
I have noticed that Glenn Greenwald is making TV appearances lately. No sockpuppets this time. He has a couple of entries.
How about this one ?
Kausfiles’ Festival of Bad Punditry
Cake, taken: I’ve said dumb things about elections, but I don’t think I’ve ever said anything quite as dumb as Glenn Greenwald’s argument, on Morning Joe, that
“if you look at who actually lost in this election, it wasn’t the liberals who lost. The progressive caucus was reelected by a rate of 95 percent. The people who bore the brunt of the electoral bloodbath were the Blue Dogs. Fifty percent of the Blue Dogs [lost] …”
As if “progressive” candidates would have gotten 51 percent of the vote—as opposed to, say, 31 percent—in the relatively conservative districts Blue Dogs tend to get elected from … P.S.: Greenwald tries to weasel out of his argument here … P.P.S.: Greenwald argues that loudmouthed progressive Rep. Alan Grayson’s losing race isn’t a good example of the perils of going too far left—and it’s apparently true that Grayson’s district is relatively conservative and likely to be inhospitable to any Dem. But Grayson “underperformed” even when the makeup of the district is taken into account … 12:55 a.m.
A New Yorker piece Micky links to is a candidate too.
Hanged for a sheep: Here’s a very strange midterm analysis from the otherwise estimable Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker.
First, Lizza argues that the Republican wave was “indiscriminate … At least in House races, there was almost nothing a Democratic member in a vulnerable district could do to avoid defeat.” Then he presents, in the form of a graph, evidence that there was indeed something House Dems could do: the more they opposed the Obama agenda on health care, the stimulus, and cap and trade, the better they did given the makeup of their district. But Lizza bizarrely concludes that this shows Obama should have loaded up his agenda even more, with “more stimulus and a comprehensive energy bill” instead of taking his “foot off the pedal.”
Huh? Lizza’s logic seems to be that as long as the president was going to lose effective control of Congress, he might as well have gotten as much through as he could before he lost it. But that’s a conclusion we could have reached from the simple fact that it was lost. What Lizza’s new evidence adds is the suggestion that maybe Obama could have prevented the loss of the House—and lived to legislate another day—by pushing less of an agenda, or less of a “bold and controversial” one. Why isn’t that the most obvious “takeaway”? … P.S: Lizza’s commenters rise as one to make these very points … 12:48 a.m.
The left is still shell shocked, which is weird because they have had warnings for a year that the country was rebelling.
Mike K (568408) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:14 amYou have to consider Barney Frank’s rant as a contender.
docweasel (5510fc) — 11/9/2010 @ 7:50 amI agree about Frank – that was the most ungracious winner’s acceptance speech ever recorded. I hope the MA state congress redraws his electoral district out of existence.
Dmac (498ece) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:07 amNot a nomination per se, but did anyone else have friends crying Tuesday night about how how they were going to have to move out of their state out of shame and anger? Wisconsin used to be so AWESOME, then the evil corporate wingers brainwashed voters/stole the election and now Scott Walker and Ron Johnson are going to take mammograms away from poor black children…!
I offered to help ’em pack. No takers. Kinda like when they didn’t move to Canada in Nov 2004.
HeatherRadish (859598) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:11 amEric
not hilarious, but i will post on that soon. Remember, only “rethuglicans” are the violent ones, right? Sigh.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:13 amWe have to realize (again, & finally), that on the Left, feelings have always trumped facts!
AD-RtR/OS! (10d922) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:41 amThe Final Nail in the Coffin of My Recently Deceased Idealism
What’s my prize?
el duderino (fedc3d) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:02 amThis is from a Wisconsin liberal relative on facebook from election night: XXX wants to vomit. I hope everyone who voted Republican today will attend a benefit for us to help pay for (daughter’s) medical bills when (hubby)loses his state benefits at a job that most people aren’t willing to do. Happy Flippin’ Election Day!
All the comments after that were related to the various liberals being sick to their stomach, lamenting the Fwords now in power in Wisconsin.
Ha ha liberal facebook friends. Yes I scoff and roll my eyes when you post links to Huffpo and Rachel Maddow. 🙂
I never post on here, just a regular lurker, but I wanted to anonymously gloat over this looney lib.
fiestamom (398639) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:35 amIf anyone were brave enough to follow Grayson around with a camera I’d expect that to be your winner but so far for me:
The craziest and funniest have come with all the stuff surrounding Pelosi’s decision to continue in “leadership.” Hittin a high (or low) mark when Mara Liasson compared Pelosi to Winston Churchill.
But I think they’ve only just begun. Insanity always gets progressively worse.
Betty Ann (996c34) — 11/9/2010 @ 9:44 amBetty Ann:
No pun intended, right? 😉
I nominate Ron Klein’s delayed congratulatory telephone call to Lt. Col. Allen West in Florida.
http://www.cbs12.com/news/west-4729494-klein-ron.html
Not so much a screaming hissy fit as a “hold your breath till you’re blue in the face” childish tantrum.
Grow up, Klein. You pulled every dirty trick you could think of, and you STILL lost handily. The least you could have done is called Congressman-elect West and congratulated him on election night. But instead you decided to draw it out like a spoiled brat who’s had his favorite toy taken away. Go cry in your milk and let the grown-ups get to work.
MWR (32e6a8) — 11/9/2010 @ 10:05 amI vote for the NY Times editorial that claims Nancy Pelosi should step down as leader because she just did not sell the Democrat position well enough.
“What they need is what Ms. Pelosi has been unable to provide: a clear and convincing voice to help Americans understand that Democratic policies are not bankrupting the country, advancing socialism or destroying freedom.
If Ms. Pelosi had been a more persuasive communicator, she could have batted away the ludicrous caricature of her painted by Republicans across the country as some kind of fur-hatted commissar jamming her diktats down the public’s throat.”
h/t Neo-neocon
CBYoungblood (febebf) — 11/9/2010 @ 1:01 pmThis is the link to the NYT editorial I mentioned in my comment, but I can’t get the link feature to work at this computer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/opinion/08mon4.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
CBYoungblood (febebf) — 11/9/2010 @ 1:03 pmThis refers to a recent singular example, you might find it a little direct;
http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2010/11/spencer-bachus-is-too-much-of-idiot-to.html
justin cord (82637e) — 11/9/2010 @ 1:23 pmI nominate Alex Sink from Florida who was whining that she lost her race because the White House just wasn’t listening to her concerns, and because of the poor job the White House did in addressing the oil spill.
Rochf (ae9c58) — 11/9/2010 @ 1:45 pmIt’s been covered pretty well other places, but how about Barney Frank managing to be a sore winner?
And that whole grief counselor thing is pretty funny. . . until you realize it is your tax dollars paying for it.
JVW (3e9492) — 11/9/2010 @ 4:10 pm, and because of the poor job the White House did in addressing the oil spill.
Given the relatively slim margin (approx. 65,000 votes) by which she lost, she might actually be right.
Two people have suggested it may have been the Clerk’s Office or Human Resources.
This sort of “counseling” is becoming par for the course among companies implementing major layoffs, which does suggest Human Resources. And note the counselees are not the Congresspeople who lost but their staffers who will be out of a job come the beginning of next year–a somewhat different kettle of fish. Alan Grayson may have a future as a pundit on MSNBC, but his staffers don’t.
kishnevi (fb9343) — 11/9/2010 @ 5:39 pmI liked fiestamom’s comment. Why aren’t all the usual Hollywood whiners and lefties threatening to leave the country, other than they have jobs?
From my perspective, it seems the election was not so much whether one party or another has great ideas to foist upon us, it more came down to: “Stop foisting your ideas upon us. We’ll let you know when something needs to be done.”
And, although, I didn’t hear it myself, I also liked Dennis Prager’s analogy:
What’s the difference between California and the Titanic? The passengers on the Titanic didn’t vote to run into the iceberg.
Ag80 (743fd1) — 11/9/2010 @ 8:41 pmA lot of people are misreading or misunderstanding Frank’s rant: yeah, he won, but he lost his chairmanship of a very powerful committee. Congressional chairmen wield enormous power, and the party OUT of power is virtually, um, powerless to have laws put up for a vote or to stop laws from coming up for votes. Committee votes are notoriously party-line: they better be, because the leadership hands out these assignments, and they don’t appreciate mavericks squandering a party’s majority advantage by voting with the minority on committee votes. So instead of Frank setting the agenda, he gets to cast a meaningless, pro forma protest vote for the next 2 years at LEAST, probably for much longer.
That’s why Frank is so pissed off. He’s lost everything that makes being a congressman worthwhile. Now he’s nothing but a back-bencher, instead of a mover and shaker. For someone of Frank’s temperament and self-involvement and sense of self-worth, this is just intolerable. He wasn’t yelling at Massachusetts voters and press as much as he was yelling in frustration a his impotence in the coming years.
This brings up another point I think many people are missing.
I take a philosophical view about all the close, potentially winnable upsets the GOP lost: realistically, many of these would have been handed right back to the Democrats in 2 years (Senate seats are a bit more valuable, being 6 years long) like the Cao and Djou seats. This would fit in with a MSM narrative of a “Democrat comeback”, when it would really be just a correction.
Nate Silver is probably right in that this was not so much a realignment as an alignment: Dems were hanging on to many old seats which were relics of the days when the South voted Democrat monolithically: it’s hard to see how the Dems get these back again, ever.
Far from the Dems being fated to be a majority by demographics, for the life-time of most of us, the leftist line they force even Blue Dogs to adhere to makes it likely they will be the minority party in BOTH houses of Congress.
docweasel (5510fc) — 11/10/2010 @ 7:12 amLOL, pardonnez-moi, but… isn’t that exactly what they friggin’ did?
They pushed through bill after bill against rising opposition from the centerline of the national attitude, culminating in the passage of Obamacare, which was adamantly opposed by, what, 70% of the nation?
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (9eeb86) — 11/10/2010 @ 8:11 amI think you have that backwards, sorta:
Progressives always get worsely insane…
Or something more grammatical along those lines.
:^D
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (9eeb86) — 11/10/2010 @ 8:15 amAlternate answer:
California is going to sink into The Pacific… of debt, if you insist on pedantry…
:^D
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (9eeb86) — 11/10/2010 @ 8:19 am