Believe It, or Not

A couple of days ago I lambasted this guy for being an idiot, but I realize now I was mistaken. He is a satirist. He is a brilliant satirist. A brilliant liberal satirist. It’s the only possible explanation for this.

Once you recover from reading the piece linked above (take your time), check out the Politico story that goes with this headline:

Obama boosts anti-abortion efforts

WTF, you say. Well, if you read the article, you find out that Obama has not betrayed his pro-reproduction rights campaign positions. Rather, he is “boosting” anti-abortion efforts by being pro-choice.

In that case, boost away, Mr. President.

10 thoughts on “Believe It, or Not

  1. wow. Just… wow. That is a transcendent piece of satire, indeed.

    The skill with which he, at length, concocts an absurd straw-man, based on a pathetic misread of liberal objections to Iraq (love that continued reference to “territory”!) and then knocks it down, as if it demonstrated a brilliant insight into the foolishness of the left! Brilliant, truly. A lesser writer would have succumbed to the urge to rush to knocking down that strawman, but Our Author drags it out soooo long, even though every reader with a pulse has seen where he was going from the very first gross misrepresentation.

    In fact, that may be what gives it away. Most right-wingers don’t have that kind of focused, sustained attention. The very idea of making a protracted case to prove a point seems beyond them. Though he does capture their ability to relentlessly fasten upon the most absurd and mistaken premise, and pound on it again and again, so there is that.

  2. I just read it. I wish I haden’t read it so early. When you face a mountain of stupid that big this early in the morning, it may ruin the rest of the day.

  3. I get it, Fox News is actually a giant satirical, fake ‘News Channel’, kind of like Stewart and Colbert. I can actually watch Hannity now and see the sublime tongue-in-cheekiness of it. Thanks for clearing this up.

  4. buckyblue — exactly. And any minute now Andy Kaufman is going to pop out from behind a curtain and let us all in on the joke.

  5. I just watched Obama’s economic speech to a Georgetown university crowd. Anyway it was a good speech as usual, very clear, and well delivered. I watched it on C-Span cause I can’t stand that annoying banner that all the cables feel obligated to run. Why do they need to spell out what I just heard the man say? I find it fascinating that after the speech MSNBC and CNN went immediately into coverage of the speech and analysis of it’s message. FAUX went immediately to commercial and 5 minutes later they are talking about yesterdays “pirate” story and today’s Blago story. Why don’t they discuss the speech? What are they waiting for? Talking points from ElRushbo?

  6. What are they waiting for? Talking points from ElRushbo?


    (Another simple answer to a simple question. 🙂 )

  7. FAUX went immediately to commercial and 5 minutes later they are talking about yesterdays “pirate” story and today’s Blago story.

    Huh. I’m amazed they didn’t do half an hour on what a lamewad they think Obama is for delivering his speeches from a teleprompter. Because, of course, their boy Dubya was such a scintillating and lucid extemporaneous speaker [squint, gape, stare, “Uhh… water driblets” ].

  8. Bad headlines are sadly common, but that Politco one is horrible.

    I like Oliver Willis’ “Number of Pirates Killed by Each President” chart at Jacobson’s post, though.

Comments are closed.