« October 2004 | Main | March 2005 »

November 15, 2004

We Belong at Applebee's!

Hi guys, it's the Hysterical Liberal. I know I haven't done a column in a while, but this whole election thing has been...just really hard, you know? I mean, I'm pretty good at separating politics from my personal life, but I just feel like, by electing Bush, Americans are showing how much they want to hurt me, my friends, and my pets. At one particularly dark moment, I even put my head in the oven. Fortunately I have an electric oven, but I did singe my ponytail and left ear.

So I was feeling pretty down until I heard the awesome news that KERRY MIGHT UNCONCEDE! WAY TO GO JOHN!!! I always knew Kerry was a true fighter! I know some of you might be skeptical of a story hosted on a blog, but I have received confirmation from several other blogs. So this election's not over yet! That, along with some amateur talk therapy with my platonic life-partner, raised my spirits enough for another column! So please Ask a Hysterical Liberal!

Man, this country's going down the crapper, and I wanted to do something about it. All my liberal friends told me to vote for Kerry, even though Ralph Nader was the only candidate who took the right positions, or even took any positions, period. They said the number one thing was to beat Bush. Now Bush won, the Democrats are trying to be more like him, and I didn't even get to vote for what I believed in. Shouldn't I have voted for Nader instead?
--Paul in Pueblo

No way! All that would have done is increase Bush's mandate. When the Republicans look at the number of Nader votes, they just think, "Oh, here's a bunch of people who are unpragmatic, uncompromising, and unwilling to work patiently inside the system. Let's roll!" It's clear that Nader really doesn't understand how to win social change. While he was off running his vanity campaign, true progressives like James Carville toiled in obscurity. And if Nader was truly concerned about democracy, he would be looking into all these vote fraud scandals!

Sorry to interrupt, but that is actually what he's doing.

Look, I don't want to get into an argument with you guys about Nader, OK? I think we can all agree that Nader is a sort of political suicide bomber. I respect that you support suicide bombers, I'm respectful of all opinions. Let's end the discussion on that positive note, OK?

Hysterical Liberal, I've been thinking that maybe elections aren't the most important way to make social change. I want to get involved in some grassroots activism. What should I do?
--Dave in Dallas

Don't give up hope in our democracy, Dave! Every important change in this country has come through voting, assuming you vote for Democrats! If the civil rights movement had concentrated on getting out the vote for Kennedy and Johnson, they would have had a bigger mandate and could have passed civil rights legislation sooner (which they secretly wanted to do all along, but they had to hide it in order to win the South). Besides, "grassroots" groups often have a hard time staying on message and relating to swing voters. They tend to meet in left-wing cloisters like churches, independent cafes, or universities instead of mainstream community centers like Applebee's or the sports stadium. Remember, 2006 is just around the corner--you can start getting out the vote right now (but please clear anything you say with the DNC first)!

I met this really cool guy a couple of weeks ago, and we've been seeing a lot of each other. We like a lot of the same stuff and communicate really well. But the other day I found out that he's from a Red State! Should I break it off now?
--Connie in Connecticut

Hmm, this is a tough one! People used to say there were "two Americas" in terms of rich and poor, but now we know that the real chasm is between the more politically-conscious Blue States and the more ignorant Red States. I think most columns would tell you to dump the hick, but I really feel like it's important for us to help uplift the less fortunate. Here's a simple three-step process you can use to evolve him in a positive direction!

  1. Red State men like their women simple-minded and submissive. You'll need to act that way in order to relate to his moral values framework.
  2. If your Blue State friends express resentment at your new personality, tell them that you're just acting ignorant in order to win the Red State guy's trust, while secretly pursuing a more enlightened agenda.
  3. Let several months pass. Then, at the first sign of your Red State beau not doing as you would like, come down on him in the hardest, most insulting way possible.
That ought to do the trick!

Posted by convener at 12:45 AM

November 11, 2004

Leaked Letter from DNC: “We Demand More Vote Fraud!”

Thanks to dedicated operatives currently under “deep cover” within the bowels of the Democratic Party, we are able, from time to time, to bring you exclusive documents that otherwise might never have reached the light of day. To help our loyal Reverse Vote Swappers better understand the utter depths of despair recently reached by the Democrats, ReverseVoteSwap.org present to you this secret document, likely to be part of the Democrats’ electoral plans for 2006.

Unable to even contemplate the idea of perhaps adjusting their platform to address the concerns of their voters rather than the lusts of their corporate backers, the Democrats seek any other possibility for eking out a few more votes. Looking back to the 2000 election, in which they fared marginally better, in that they got more votes than the other guys, Democrats have apparently decided that GOP voter fraud is their only possible salvation in upcoming confrontations. Thus, the relatively fraud-free (by US standards) 2004 election is bad news for the Democrats, and they aim to turn things around.

Letter from Terry McAuliffe to Ed Gillespie: We Demand Appropriately Fraudulent Elections

Since Election Day, we have heard numerous reports from voters in Ohio describing harrowing experiences of electoral woe. Voters who had lived in the same district for decades found their names stricken from the rolls. Voters were forced to wait in line upwards of six hours to cast their vote in the most important election ever in democracy’s own empire. Some reports even showed thousands of votes erroneously credited to Bush due to machine errors.

All of this, however, is not enough. In 2000, Democrats relied on massive voter disenfranchisement and Election Day shenanigans to insure that we could talk about the “evil” Republicans rather than issues that matter to voters. Therefore, in 2000, leading Democrats were able to criticize illegal practices by the GOP in Florida and did not need to court progressive voters by calling for a reasonable minimum wage or a just US foreign policy or universal healthcare. This, I’m sure we can both agree, is an example of the two-party system working at its best. You court the right, we invoke the fear of the right to court the left, and we both divvy up the spoils for another four years. This, my friend, is US democracy as it is best played.

2004, however, was quite different. Your candidate beat up my candidate by millions of votes. And I’m not going to say that you didn’t cheat at all; everybody cheats a little. But can you really look yourself in the mirror and say, “I cheated enough”? I don’t think so. A few votes here and there in Ohio is the sort of thing that you guys and pull off in your sleep. Whatever happened to the long, drawn-out, Florida-style debacle? I haven’t even heard the word “wrangle” used once by pundits, and believe you me, I watch a lot of television.

Ed, I don’t want this to sound like a threat But be that as it may, I have to make one thing clear: if Democrats start to find that they don’t have the support of Republican election fraud to bolster our support, we might have to talk about actual issues. You don’t want that, and I don’t want that. Hell, I probably want it even less than you do! But the good of the system is at stake. We’re in a bad way here in the blue states. If we don’t have some real, down-home, Karl Rove-style evil to deal with, this party is going to be in a lot of trouble, and we both know what that means. Need I remember you of the 60s?

Please, Ed, I urge you. We need to unite America under a single business-friendly banner, and the only way to do that is to make sure that Democrats are constantly harping on anything other than issues. So help us out in 2006 with some serious, blatant fraud. A little effort on your part, and we can keep America from talking about things that matter for years to come.

Terry McAuliffe

Posted by convener at 06:01 PM

November 10, 2004

Which Way Backward for the Democratic Party?

Election 2004 has produced a shattering defeat for the Democratic Party. This comes as no great surprise to us here at ReverseVoteSwap.org. Not only did we predict as much, but most of our staff, being firmly in the flower of youth, can't really a remember a time when the Democrats weren't subject to shattering defeats.

Still, the 2004 debacle, combining the presidential sucker-punch of 2000 with the Congressional ass-kick of 2002, has lead to some Democratic Party soul-searching, whatever that means when applied to soulless organisms. Our courageous infiltrators have informed us that the Democrats are planning a series of major advertisements to put forward a new political message. While we at ReverseVoteSwap.org rather doubt that anyone could still be convinced to support such a shabby party, if this election proved anything it's that there are many stupid, gullible Americans--just think, John Kerry received over 56 million votes! We are releasing this material with the hope that an informed public is a vigilant one.

The Democrats have, apparently, decided to retain Chairman Terry McAuliffe until his planned retirement next year, thereby proving that the world's oldest political party is a less serious organization than most professional sports teams, civic associations, or booster clubs, in which the leadership is considered responsible for at least the major cock-ups. Nevertheless, we must admit that the Party has developed a clever way of apologizing for itself in the following ad, suggesting that the Party's failures are the very fruits of McAuliffe's success!

It's all up from here!

The big paradigm-shifter in Election 2004 was the question of moral values. The notion that a candidate should have moral values apparently came as a complete shock to the Democratic leadership, and they are now scrambling to integrate moral considerations into their politicians' neuro-psychological profiles. You can imagine the difficulties an East Coast yuppie would have trying to compute the ethical calculus of an ordinary proletarian, but the Democrats have saved themselves the trouble by simply aping Republican rhetoric. The following revised DNC logo showcases the New Democrat values of unity, tradition, crypto-Christianity, etc.

The Watchword: Capitulate!

Finally, as stories of vote fraud, voter harrassment, and polling irregularities surface nationwide--and especially in the key swing states--all eyes are on Senator Kerry. Will he abandon these issues just like Al Gore did four years ago? Yes, obviously, but some people never learn. The billboard shown below is designed to help the rank-and-file liberal get over it.

Kerry Lost

Posted by convener at 11:51 PM

Finally Got the Joementum!

ReverseVoteSwap.org has intercepted the following communique from Senator Joseph Lieberman to his claque of corporate jihadists. We publish it here for your information.

Election 2004: Finally Got the Joementum!

Dearest cronies, for many years now we've struggled to bring mainstream American values--such as video-game phobia, ultra-Zionism, and unrestricted trading of speculative instruments--back into the Democratic Party. Today, in the aftermath of Election 2004, we can confidently say: Democrats have finally got the Joementum!

What exactly is Joementum? It's about standing up for the orthodox Jewish beliefs on which this country was founded. It's about finding common ground with the Republicans during divisive election campaigns. It's about not necessarily winning, but, as I said in my primary campaign, "building to a surprising finish." Thanks to Joementum, Democrats across the country are more surprised than ever!

Now's no time to rest, though. From Fallujah to Ft. Lauderdale, the freedom-haters are trying to weaken America and turn the Democrats into a party of liberals. We must fight them all along the way. Our New Democrat base of metrosexual conservatives is expanding rapidly, and if we adopt sufficiently right-wing policies, we may even get some Republicans to vote for us. Our "Bridge to the 19th Century" has never been so sturdy! Our triumph is assured!

Sincerely, your Leader,
Senator Joseph Lieberman

Posted by convener at 01:43 PM

November 04, 2004

Open Letter to Terry McAuliffe: How to Blame This on Nader

Dear Terry,

First of all, please don’t let the door smack you on the ass on your way out of town. Despite recent evidence of the contrary, it has long been the understanding of those who follow your career at ReverseVoteSwap.org that a party chair is judged not just by how much money he can extort and how effectively he can smash independent left campaigns, but also by the frequency with which he wins elections. While you have certainly proven yourself quite capable at some of your job requirements, your decisive defeat in what should have been the easiest election in decades leaves you looking like a baseball player who is unequaled when it comes to spitting and scratching but doesn’t know which end of the bat to hold.

But before you retire to the dustbin of history, ReverseVoteSwap.org can think of one important area in which we can collaborate. Specifically, we each have a vested interest in publicizing Ralph Nader’s work in pulling serious progressives away from the Democratic party. We, of course, are proud of the votes Nader received in this election; it is less controversial to be a revolutionary socialist right now than it is to have simply pulled the lever for the candidate you agree with, and therefore Nader supporters represent the political core of future movements to defeat you and your GOP cronies.

Conversely, you just really need someone to blame this catastrophe on. We assume you are currently debating how best to blame Ralph Nader already, despite the fact that you were essentially successful in removing his campaign as a factor this year. We just want to offer some friendly advice, as you are doubtless busy packing up your possessions as you prepare for demotion to the Democrats’ farm team. (You’ve probably heard this already, but have you considered working for the Republicans? We suspect you would fit in equally well with them. They’ll likely be hiring after picking up so many new seats.) Why not try some of our ideas as a time saver?

  1. Nader’s vote total nationally exceeded the difference between Bush and Kerry in Ohio.

    It is true. Nader took more votes from Kerry nationally than Kerry lost to by to Bush in the key swing state of Ohio. If Nader supporters were serious about defeating Bush, they would have all moved to Ohio in time to vote for Kerry, allowing him to win that key swing state! Nader supporters, how can you look yourselves in the mirror?

  2. Kicking Nader off of ballots took away resources that otherwise could have been used to make John Kerry a good candidate.

    It is true. Kicking Nader off of the ballot in Oregon, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Texas, and elsewhere meant doling out millions to the best-connected, most expensive right wing business lawyers in the land. That money could have been spent trying to make Kerry less terrible. Nader supporters, how can you live with yourselves?

  3. Having a real progressive candidate who clearly wasn’t going to win showed how worthless the choice between Bush and Kerry was and kept progressive voters at home.

    It is true. Ralph Nader’s despicable ego campaign did two things at once. It proved that John Kerry wasn’t a progressive, and when we smashed Nader’s campaign, it showed progressives that building a real left alternative will be a depressingly difficult process. Had Nader not run, thus doing us the double favor of not illustrating how backwards Kerry is and not forcing us Democrats to show what unprincipled things we’re willing to do to smash the left, many depressed progressives likely would have just held their noses and voted Kerry instead of staying home and drinking their troubles away. Nader supporters, how can you be so naïve?

  4. Were it not for Nader, Cobb supporters could have stumped directly for Kerry.

    It is true. Most Cobb supporters really just wanted to support Kerry everywhere, but were embarrassed into running a pseudo-campaign due to Nader’s candidacy. Had Nader not been struggling to build a left alternative, Cobb supporters would not have needed to give lip service to party building, and therefore could have simply worked for Kerry in every state, providing us with a critical edge. Nader supporters, why are you betraying yourselves?

ReverseVoteSwap.org offers blanket permission to use any of these excuses. You don’t even have to give us credit, but we obviously would love to be publicly condemned by you if you should find the opportunity to fit us in while arguing that your party must move even further to the right. We admit that our excuses are a little thin, considering the fact that there is absolutely no reasonable argument to be made that Nader is to blame for your party’s shameful defeat. However, if the Bush administration has taught us anything, it is that in a pinch, a constantly shifting web of contradictory half-truths can stand in for one big lie.

Good luck in your future endeavors. You should look into any openings in the tobacco lobby. They are always looking for slick operators willing to tell people that up is down.


Posted by convener at 10:41 PM

November 02, 2004

Vote or Don't!

Dear Reverse Vote Swappers, it is an honor to address you on this, our nation's Election Day. On this glorious Day, the real masters of government temporarily beach the Ship of State and allow the common man the honor of pretending to steer it. The rank-and-file citizen is elevated from a passive recipient of oppression to a passive participant in his own enslavement. In his hands the voter holds the power to change anything that will not really change anything.

As a strategic voting website, you might expect ReverseVoteSwap.org to be very adamant about the importance of voting. And indeed, if you're going to vote for Nader, the only serious anti-war candidate, then your vote does mean something and you should spare no expense to cast it. Otherwise it's basically a wash. ReverseVoteSwap.org has no interest in engaging in the sort of dishonest nagging that hitherto apolitical people engage in once they notice an election's on. Please understand that we have nothing against voting; we would like it very much if voting could indeed make a difference, but this will quite obviously require at least two or three major revolutions. Until then, in the words of Dead Prez: "Vote if you want to vote. Smoke if you want to smoke."

So don't feel bad if you don't make it to the polls today--unless you're going to vote for Nader. In that case, get off your ass and go show those motherf*ckers you're serious!

Posted by convener at 10:24 AM

November 01, 2004

CREAM's List

Reverse Vote Swappers may have heard of EMILY's List, a fundraising organization dedicated to providing free cash for women Democrats who aren't necessarily completely hostile to abortion (sorry, choice). Among such women's rights crusaders EMILY's List has assisted are Inez Tenenbaum, who supports a late-term abortion ban; Betty Castor, who supports a late-term abortion ban; and Stephanie Herseth, who supports a late-term abortion ban.

Given who EMILY's List blows its wad on, you may be thinking, "Dang, this EMILY must be one giant sucker." But you'd be wrong, since EMILY isn't a person at all! It's just an acronym for Early Money Is Like Yeast, an old feminist slogan which expresses the wisdom that, with enough cash, even a woman can win an election.

Now, EMILY's List hasn't been a particular success in terms of Democratic control of government, but it has been very effective at squeezing the cheese out of liberals--the very political formula pioneered by Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe. Naturally, the Chairman took note of EMILY's List and did the ladies one better with his bold new initiative: CREAM's List. Inside sources bankrolled by ReverseVoteSwap.org have obtained the Chairman's introductory letter to potential CREAM's List donors, which we are duty-bound to pass on to our loyal customers.

Chairman Terry McAuliffe Introduces CREAM's List

Friends, it is my honor as Chairman of the Democratic Party--the second-most popular political party in America--to introduce CREAM's List, a revolutionary new approach to fundraising that builds a bridge to the 21st century with traditional New Democrat values.

Friends, these days we know that "high-class taste niggaz got to spend paper." Study after study shows that voters are increasingly aware of candidates' personal bling vectors--and that it influences their choices at the ballot box. Cash rules everything around us, and Democrats must stay competitive in this area.

Friends, I am happy to report that, under my iron rule as Chairman, not only have we elevated more individual millionaires to public office, but the five richest Senators are all Democrats. Senator John Kerry, who has an almost 50% chance of becoming the next President, is over six times as wealthy as the nearest Republican Senator.

These are wonderful achievements, but we must not become complacent in our success. During the Party primary, Senator Kerry was, at times, forced to put up his personal shit as collateral for his campaign debts. Of course the Senator's mansions, cars, boats, planes, and whatnot are safe now--but that they were ever in danger is totally unacceptable. How would Democrats fare in the national bling-off if our candidate were to roll up in his ride with factory-installed, and not custom gold-plated, rims? What would the Senator's supporters think if he could not provide champagne with diamonds in the glass at his Beacon Hill soirees? It would mean nothing less than a complete collapse of confidence in the Party and the disintegration of the two-party system, opening the door to no-class scrubs like Ralph Nader.

It is to stave off this looming threat that I have started CREAM's List. The mission of CREAM's List is to provide generous funding to Democratic candidates who are already extremely wealthy. Filthy-rich politicians often find it difficult to raise money due to the crude yet effective rhetoric of player-haters; furthermore, they are tempted to dip into their own funds, having more than enough to satisfy their every material desire. But not even the blingiest individual could afford today's modern, zillion-dollar political campaigns without damaging their own personal largesse.

Friends, CREAM's List is an important weapon in our war to cleanse the Democratic Party of its traditional association with thug-like unionists, terrifying Blacks, hairy-armpit feminists, and other grody elements. Your support is crucial--please donate today!

Dollar dollar bill y'all,
Terry McAuliffe
Chairman, Democratic National Committee

Posted by convener at 07:19 PM

Memo to Pundits: Osama Doesn't Give a Fuck

All across the country--from the high-rises of Manhattan to the medium-rises of Washington, DC--pundits, amateurs, and cranks are trying to grasp the impact of Osama bin Laden's latest tape on the election. Is bin Laden supporting Dubya, given how polarizing the current president has been? Is he supporting Kerry, thinking that John-John would let him off the hook? Or did Bush let him off the hook by letting him get away at Tora Bora? Or is bin Laden supporting who he doesn't want, knowing Americans would likely vote for the other guy? Or does Osama realize that Americans would realize what he's up to, so he's actually supporting who he really supports, calculating that Americans would vote for who he supports under the assumption that they're not supposed to vote for him?

ReverseVoteSwap.org would like to remind our pundit friends that Bush and Kerry are going to do the exact same thing in the Middle East. Osama bin Laden realizes this because he's not an idiot. To sum up, Osama doesn't give a fuck who wins the stupid election. Sorry!

Posted by convener at 11:08 AM

Rogue State Rulers: Act Crazy for Safety!

We at ReverseVoteSwap.org would like to put aside the partisan politics for a second and address ourselves to the leaders of the international community, especially the so-called "rogue states." Gentlemen (and ladies, if there are any), you are in grave danger. ReverseVoteSwap.org may not particularly like you or what you do, but the only people in the world who would become less oppressed by replacing the local police with American soldiers are Americans. Unfortunately, despite the herculean efforts of Ralph Nader and our website, it is quite likely that the United States will end up with another lunatic imperialist in the White House until at least 2008. World leaders and foreign despots, you must take your security into your own hands: act crazy for safety!

All history, especially recent history, has shown that the only way to beat America is to either be crazy or make America think you're crazy. Muammar al-Qaddafi and Kim Jong-il have kept their countries safe from invasion by acting so nuts that they make the Empire afraid. On the other hand, Saddam Hussein is puttering around some undisclosed location as his reward for destroying all his evil weapons, letting international inspectors into Iraq, and in general relying upon civilized standards of diplomatic behavior.

Now at this point you might be saying to yourself, "But I'm merely the dictator of some tiny, impoverished country! I have neither the money nor the connections to acquire weapons of mass destruction!" First of all, we advise you to think creatively about where you might purchase WMD. Have you tried the United States? As a rule, the US only declares someone an enemy six to eight months before trying to destroy them, and will cheerfully sell you anything before then.

Secondly, keep in mind that international relations are mainly a matter of image management. If you project the proper idiom, the fact that you actually possess no WMD will hardly be an important factor. (Since the American government will likely be trying to convince the American people you have WMD no matter what, you may as well roll with it.) You should be extremely careless and zany about threatening to use these weapons for any or no reason. To assist you, ReverseVoteSwap.org has designed the following press conference role play that should give you a sense of how to proceed.

"Act Crazy for Safety"

[First impressions are important. Develop an arrogant strut that you can employ on your way to the podium. Military uniforms with piles of medals are a must, but add a bit of personal flair that makes you look crazy; a boa is a nice touch.]

'Sup fools. Before we set this bitch off, I'd like to announce that my government has acquired the following shit: VX gas, sarin gas, influenza strains, anthrax spores, chicken pox, cow pox, smallpox, bigpox, Botox, A-bombs, H-bombs, and Q-bombs. Oh snap, that last one was supposed to be secret. Oh well, ask me some shit.

Mr. President, the US State Department has identified your government as a major sponsor of international terrorism--


...uh, well, I was going to ask for your response...

Yeah I give money to terrorists, so what? Anyone who fucks with America is my boy. I'm givin' money to Osama, Al-Gama'a, the Dalai Lama, I don't give a fuck! I dare America to invade my shit. Your kids'll be findin' SARS fun-packs in their Happy Meals next damn week. You know how we do! Next question.

Mr. President, how do you respond to the reports that you've used poison gas against your citizens?

Yeah I gas my own people, so what? I'll gas you for pissin' me off. I'll gas all y'all stinkin' asses. I'll gas my damn self! Y'all don't KNOW me. Next question.

Mr. President, two questions--

Oh, this motherfucker already playin' on my nerves.

--firstly, will you allow UN weapons inspectors into the country? Secondly, how would you retaliate against a US military force?

To answer your first question, next motherfucker who asks me two questions is gettin' gassed. To answer your second question, look at all this bling on my chest, ya blind-ass punk. And we don't give no Purple Hearts an' shit. You have to give a medal back if your stupid ass get shot. Next question.

Sir, just to be clear, are you threatening to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States if they pursue military action against you?

Hell yeah. NOW what?!

So you admit that you possess weapons of mass destruction?

Damn son, I just TOLD you I did! You think I'm playin' around? Right now we got a room full of crazy-ass scientists like...puttin' yellow cake in aluminum tubes an' shit...refinin' shit...mushroom clouds....

Next question.

Mr. President, do you have a message to the American people?

Word. Dear America: when's the last time you thought about killer bees? You thought that shit was over, right? Heh. Now, I'm not saying we've done some weird shit to killer bees, but I'm also not saying that we haven't done some weird shit to killer bees. So if your army comes to fuck with us, and then coincidentally like a million bees go on the swarm, stingin' people, killin' people--well, you can put two an' two together. Peace OUT!

Posted by convener at 07:23 AM