Pink-y and the Complete Lack of a Brain

So I see the screeching, ineffectual buffoons from Code Pink -- namely the group's founder, Medea Benjamin -- were at it again today.

In case you were lucky enough to miss it, this time Benjamin managed to somehow grab the spotlight away from her biggest target yet, heckling the President of the United States. Never mind that Barack Obama was holding a press conference whose sole purpose was to explain and clarify U.S. policy on the prosecution of war overseas and to push publicly again for the closure of Guantanamo, that of course wasn't good enough for Benjamin, because DRONES!

What I loved about this moment, though, is that Obama handled it with an almost staggering level of graciousness, certainly much more than Benjamin would've gotten from a president culled from the current crop of Republicans. He let her shriek, let her rant about the CIA and Muslim-killing, even deferred to her, and then calmly continued.

In other words, he made her look like what she is: a fucking jackass.

Related: The Daily Banter: The 60's Brand of Protest Doesn't Work Anymore/2.8.13"

That's Not Funny!

Also subbing as today's Quotes of the Day, let's spin the ever-popular Wheel of Outrage and see what we come up with this time around:

"While Ms. Harris did not seem offended, others were on her behalf."

-- The New York Times

"No, I can’t take a fucking compliment."

-- Irin Carmon of Salon.com

What these happen to be are my two favorite quotes related to the "controversy" over President Obama's comment yesterday about California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

During a fundraiser just outside San Francisco, he effusively praised Harris's many abilities, then said that “she also happens to be by far the best-looking attorney general in the country." If you were curious what that mushroom cloud was on the horizon west of you yesterday, well, there you have it.

Even though Obama's comment was meant as both a compliment and a lighthearted joke about a friend, was it probably unnecessary? Sure. Is it worthy of being turned into yet another "teachable moment" where everything has to come to a complete stop until the fragile liberal sensibilities of the relentlessly aggrieved are satisfactorily salved (at least until the next thing comes along)? No, not a chance.

As you can see above, the Times inadvertently sums up in one quick sentence the very nature of our call-out culture and the indignation nation we now inhabit, where even if you're not insulted by something, there are always a million people happy to be insulted for you. Meanwhile, Irin Carmon, one of the most prolific offenders when it comes to being offended, manages to sum up perfectly the attitude that perpetuates, ad infinitum, this kind of exhausting nonsense. Her column in today's Salon (motto: "All the Self-Righteousness That's Fit To Print") is of course called, in appropriately scolding/lecturing fashion, "How To Talk About a Woman's Looks." That's a trick by the way, because if there's one thing Salon has taught me over the years, it's that the only proper response is, "you don't -- ever -- because, well, fuck you, you objectifying, sexist asshole."

So, there -- I hope you've all learned your lesson for the day.

That concludes this episode of "That's Not Funny!"

Let the usual accusations of "mansplaining" and "white privilege" commence.

Adding: This is interesting. A discussion via e-mail with a friend of mine about this little controversy led me to a three-year-old piece in Slate by Emily Gould that I'd somehow forgotten about and that really takes Irin Carmon apart. Gould takes aim at what she calls the "Outrage World" that sites like Jezebel and Salon thrive on, creating righteous indignation among their audiences in the name of page views. The column Gould's piece was pegged off of was written by Carmon; in it Carmon basically accused The Daily Show of being a sexist boys' club and dismissed the then-recent hiring of Olivia Munn as something that should offend women.

Here's Gould:

"Irin Carmon's argument is essentially this: 'Former videogame show host' Olivia Munn may soon become the show's first new female correspondent in seven years, but her potential hiring is nothing to celebrate, because, while she's a woman, she's not the right kind of woman. She has hosted G4's Attack of the Show for four years, and she has written a book. But, per Carmon, 'her previous career path has led some' -- meaning, I guess, Carmon and Jezebel commenters -- 'to criticize The Daily Show for hiring someone better known for suggestively putting things in her mouth on a video game show … and being on the covers of Playboy and Maxim than for her comedic chops.' Included as a link is a previous Jezebel post that featured video of Munn jumping into a giant pie while wearing a French maid costume...

As of this writing, Carmon's post has generated almost 1,000 comments and nearly 90,000 page views. It's a prime example of the feminist blogosphere's tendency to tap into the market force of what I've come to think of as 'outrage world' -- the regularly occurring firestorms stirred up on mainstream, for-profit, woman-targeted blogs like Jezebel and also, to a lesser degree, Slate's own XX Factor and Salon's Broadsheet. They're ignited by writers who are pushing readers to feel what the writers claim is righteously indignant rage but which is actually just petty jealousy, cleverly marketed as feminism. These firestorms are great for page-view-pimping bloggy business. But they promote the exact opposite of progressive thought and rational discourse, and the comment wars they elicit almost inevitably devolve into didactic one-upsmanship and faux-feminist cliché. The vibe is less sisterhood-is-powerful than middle-school clique in-fight, with anyone who dares to step outside of chalk-drawn lines delimiting what's 'empowering' and 'anti-feminist' inevitably getting flamed and shamed to bits. Paradoxically, in the midst of all the deeply felt concern about women's sexual and professional freedom to look and be however they want, it's considered de rigueur to criticize anyone, like Munn, who dares to seem to want to sexually attract men."

Gould's been the subject of quite a bit of controversy herself over the years, with seemingly anyone and everyone in the cliquey New York City new media world, including me, having an opinion of her and her work at one time or another. But irrespective of that, she's right on the money on this. Also, the whole Daily Show-Olivia Munn dust-up helps to put things in perspective: As it turns out, Irin Carmon has always been a self-satisfied hack whose opinions should rarely be taken seriously.

A Hen in the Fox House

Today's column for the Daily Banter looks at the latest Sally Kohn column for Fox News's website -- and the completely predictable reaction to it.

Here's the opening shot:

"Today I’m doing you the favor of reading Fox News’s website so you don’t have to. Feel free to forgo any thanks in favor of donations to my PayPal account which will immediately go toward my medical care. Now keep in mind, I’m talking about the actual Fox News site, not Fox Nation — the one comically billed as the specialized 'opinion' face of Fox — so of course you can expect that since Fox News is the “fair and balanced” network there will be less Alex Jonesian lunatic ranting, fewer hysterical cries about the dangers of Sharia Law and creeping socialism, and a more even-handed and civil discussion of the events of the day, minus demands for anyone not to the right of G. Gordon Liddy to kindly pack up his or her things and move to Cuba, right? Sure thing."

Read the Rest Here

Rob the Vote

I don't like to circulate stuff that I can't verify, but given that the source which is circulating this is someone I trust -- a former senior producer at NBC News -- I don't feel quite so bad about putting it out there.

According to the person who originally uploaded this video to YouTube -- a voter in Pennsylvania -- here's what happened:

"I initially selected Obama but Romney was highlighted. I assumed it was being picky so I deselected Romney and tried Obama again, this time more carefully, and still got Romney. Being a software developer, I immediately went into troubleshoot mode. I first thought the calibration was off and tried selecting Jill Stein to actually highlight Obama. Nope. Jill Stein was selected just fine. Next I deselected her and started at the top of Romney’s name and started tapping very closely together to find the ‘active areas’. From the top of Romney’s button down to the bottom of the black checkbox beside Obama’s name was all active for Romney. From the bottom of that same checkbox to the bottom of the Obama button (basically a small white sliver) is what let me choose Obama. Stein’s button was fine. All other buttons worked fine."

This could be a hoax. It could be a very serious miscalibration. Or it could be something unimaginably insidious. Regardless, I have a feeling you'll be seeing this 18-second clip quite a bit in the coming hours and days.

Update Here

Quote of the Day, Jr.

"What you are going to see over the next week is an overt effort by Democrats to politicize the issue of disaster response. They’re right to do it. Conservatives are already complaining about this, but the attempt to wall disaster response off from politics in the aftermath of a disaster is an attempt to insulate Republicans from the consequences of their policies... The GOP is the party arguing for splurging on a long vacation at the beach rather than repairing the roof. Naturally, they want to have this argument only when it’s sunny and never when it’s raining. There’s no reason to accommodate them."

-- New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait on why it's essential for the Democrats to use Hurricane Sandy to point out the political differences between President Obama and Mitt Romney

I'm not sure I can add anything to that.

Chris Cross

Politically, this really is the quote and image of the day: ardent Romney supporter Chris Christie addressing Fox News's couch-of-dingbats this morning and enthusiastically praising Barack Obama's response to Hurricane Sandy. He's so effusive, in fact, that it's actually a little uncomfortable to watch because you keep waiting for the screen to suddenly go to color bars or a "Please Stand By" slate as you hear Roger Ailes storming into the studio in the background shouting, "What the fuck is going on?!"

It's sad that what should be standard operating procedure -- leaders of different political stripes coming together during a time of crisis -- seems so shocking in our current political climate. Either way, this kind of pro-Obama PR on Fox News, of all outlets, is exactly what the Romney camp doesn't need right now. Although Romney's in Ohio today staging a "flood drive," because apparently, as Cesca said last night on Twitter, Ohio is Manhattan's route to the sea.

The Pulpit Bullies

Today's column for the Daily Banter takes a look at what a vote for Mitt Romney inadvertently rewards: the scorched-earth, hostage-taking politics of the right.

Here's the opening shot:

"One of the realities of modern politics that I’ve never been able to get my head fully around is the desperate desire of the right to revel in the suffering of its political adversaries. I get that I shouldn’t be surprised by it, since it’s the traditional behavioral pattern of most schoolyard bullies, but it’s still always seemed staggeringly unproductive — not to mention dangerous for the country — to rally around a cause or candidate solely because doing so “pisses off liberals.” Things like hypocrisy, the naked contradiction of previously embraced views and the potential detriment to self-interest don’t even enter the conservative thought process these days so long as something provides an opportunity to point and laugh. I think this goes to the argument that modern conservatives seem to be interested only in power for power’s sake, while just about everyone else across the political spectrum is interested in actually governing; it doesn’t matter if they act like children because they’re not really in it to make a difference anyway. Mitt Romney is, in many ways, the living embodiment of this cynical political ethos — or at the very least the current world champion of exploiting it."

Read the Rest Here

Reality Check

Cesca is my partner in quite a few internet endeavors these days so it's rare I come right out and push his stuff here because I really don't have to. His piece over at the Daily Banter today, though, is required reading for anyone still trying to take President Obama down from the left -- over drone strikes, the drug war, supposed broken promises, etc. -- and those still thinking that in the current climate and with political reality being what it is, voting for a Gary Johnson or a Jill Stein is a nice little "screw you" to Obama and the two-party system in general.

Bob lays out in detail the reasons why, as trite a cliché as it may sound, a vote against Obama or an abstinence from the process altogether in the name of protest really is a vote for Romney -- and a vote for a disastrous near-future for this country.

I've always felt that those who relentlessly hector Obama from the left and center-left need to come to terms with the idea of "smart accountability" -- namely that you're never going to get a perfect candidate since that's not the way our system works and it's better to have someone in office who for the most part shares your ideals and delivers you political victories, say, 70% of the time than someone who stands in stark contrast to everything you hold dear and will give you nothing you want.

Anyway, take a look at Cesca's piece -- and be sure to circulate it to the pissy, sanctimonious friends on Facebook who continue to browbeat you about how Obama has let them down.

The Daily Banter: Anti-Obama Progressives are Voting for a Romney Disaster/10.29.12

Battle Royale

Today's column for the Daily Banter of course deals with last night's debate -- a debate for which Barack Obama was apparently coached by Samuel L. Jackson -- and its aftermath.

Here's an excerpt:

"On that subject there was my favorite post-debate quote of the night, one of those statements that’s so awe-inspiringly hypocritical that it leaves you stunned that there are still new depths of bullshit to plumb in American politics. After the whole thing was over, Romney campaign manager Stuart Stevens said about Obama, 'He tried to do a somewhat charmless version of Joe Biden, but I don’t think it worked particularly well. When you saw a different Al Gore in every debate, I think people find that disconcerting. One thing they want in a president is a steadiness and a dependability. They see a person one week ago and they see a different person tonight, and they think, what’s next?' Given that Stevens works for Mitt Romney, the most rawly cynical and opportunistic political cipher our system has ever had to suffer through, this is the kind of comment that makes you wish there was a disappointed Bond villain nearby who could pull a lever and suddenly drop him into a tank full of sharks."

Read the Rest Here

Desperation Row

Today's column for the Daily Banter deals with yesterday's big, booming bombshell -- hyped breathlessly by Drudge, Hannity and Tucker Carlson -- which revealed that the President of the United States is, in fact, black.

Here's an excerpt:

"It borders on tragic that four years into this man’s presidency — a presidency the right has sought over and over again to delegitimize in any and every way possible — this is all they’ve got, not an honest appraisal of his administration’s policies and what they have and haven’t done for the country but a desperate relitigating of the tired claim that Obama was never vetted properly, that he’s got something to hide, that Americans were duped back in 2008, that there are just too many questions surrounding his 'otherness' for him to be where he is right now, much less to be allowed to remain there for another four years."

Read the Rest Here

Quote of the Day

"Romney is an almost perfect amalgam of all the great out-of-touch douchebags of our national cinema: he's Greg Marmalard from Animal House mixed with Billy Zane's sneering, tux-wearing Cal character in Titanic to pussy-ass Prince Humperdinck to Roy Stalin to Gordon Gekko (he's literally Gordon Gekko). He's everything we've been trained to despise, the guy who had everything handed to him, doesn't fight his own battles and insists there's only room in the lifeboat for himself – and yet the Democrats, for some reason, have had terrible trouble beating him in a popularity contest."

-- Matt Taibbi, in a piece which wonders why Barack Obama, while pulling ahead in almost every poll, isn't completely obliterating Mitt Romney

A Better Off Dead reference.

For that, Taibbi has my eternal love and respect.

Picture of the Day

President Obama tweeted this photo as a response to Clint Eastwood's utterly bizarre speech at the Republican National Convention, in which he addressed an empty chair that was supposed to represent Obama.

The caption: "This seat's taken."

Leave it to Obama to out bad-ass Clint.

Assistant Quote of the Day

"That really bothered me. You notice he said ‘anger’ twice. He’s really trying to use racial coding and access some really deep stereotypes about the angry black man... I know it’s a heavy thing, I don’t say it lightly, but this is ‘niggerization.’ You are not one of us, you are like the scary black man who we’ve been trained to fear."

-- Touré, discussing Mitt Romney's claim that Barack Obama is running an "angry" campaign

Touré's a smart guy but he's also one of those people whose stock-in-trade is racial issues -- he's kind of trained himself to see racism everywhere he looks. That said, there's a reason that subtly racist comments are called "dog whistles": Since coming right out and calling somebody a nigger would be blatantly indefensible, code words are instead used with the idea that the right people will understand the message. It gets the point across while providing the protection of plausible deniability for the person making the statement, allowing his or her supporters to make the maddening claim that no racism was intended and that those who see it are simply guilty of exploiting the potential of racism for their own political benefit.

Needless to say, the Romney campaign is already howling at NBC News's smug prick of a president, Steve Capus, over the Touré comment, demanding satisfaction. We'll see what happens next.

By the way, Charles Pierce has a really fantastic piece in the new issue of Esquire that examines how President Obama's blackness is something we convinced ourselves didn't really matter -- in fact, we patted ourselves on the back for our willingness to supposedly not care much about his race -- and how it immediately set him up for a certain amount of failure. He wasn't supposed to be a flesh-and-blood politician -- he was supposed to be the savior who absolved us of our culture's racial sins. This is my favorite quote from it -- it's positively brilliant:

"This is... what is perhaps the most noxious idea out there: that Barack Obama 'failed' in his promise to 'bring the country together.' He's now campaigning in such a way that you might believe he actually wants to be president all over again. He is engaging in politics. Mother of mercy, I swear David Brooks is just going to break down and go all to pieces on PBS some evening over the president's betrayal of his role as the country's anodyne black man and, of course, his upcoming role as black martyr to incivility and discord. It is his duty, dammit, to be all the things that people like Brooks wanted him to be so that he could lose, nobly, and then the country could go back to its rightful owners."

Quote of the Day

"I need to say that it has been pointed out that cataloging racism is a sight below the standards of this blog. I sort of agree. But over the course of the Obama presidency I have become convinced that no single force exerts a greater pull on his presidency than white racism. Not white resentment. Not white populism. White racism. I don't know how else to explain a health care denounced as reparations, the rather continuous disrespect, the sense that he is a Kenyan illegitimate or all of the attendant theories. I do not know how else to explain a state like West Virginia, arguably the most racist in the country, where delegates are now refusing to endorse the president. There will be more on this in the coming months. I don't want to scoop myself. But my point is I can only stop talking about racism, when it ceases to be a significant force in our politics. When the mere act of being white gives Obama's opponent 'a home-state advantage nationally,' I can't stop. It would be deeply wrong to stop."

-- The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates

I gave Coates the Quote of the Day honor because I'd rather have his thoughtful and passionate rebuttal put front, center and above the actual repugnant comment he was responding to, which was this -- from Arizona conservative talk radio asshole Barbara Espinosa:

"I don't believe in calling (Barack Obama) the first black president. I voted for the white guy myself. I call him a monkey."

Are all Republicans racist? No, of course not.

But make no mistake: The GOP as an institution has fomented, tolerated, enabled or exploited racism within its ranks for far too long, and it's never been more blatant and sickening than during the past three-and-a-half years of the Obama presidency.

If you deny it at this point, you're either lying to yourself or you're an idiot.

The White Knight Rises (Complete)

The Full Text of My Most Recent Piece for the Daily Banter

The important thing to keep in mind as you watch Mitt Romney's brand new campaign ad -- the one that officially kicks off his general election push for the White House -- is that everything you're seeing, and not seeing, is intentional. We've witnessed some pretty impressive missteps and gaffes from the Romney camp over the last several months, but make no mistake: The advertising of a presidential candidate is a tightly choreographed piece of theater where nothing is done spur-of-the-moment and nothing is left to chance. Penetrating the psychology of your target audience is too important -- that audience is always shown exactly and only what the campaign and its promotional team want it to see.

What this means is that it's not an accident that every face you see in Romney's new "Promise of America" ad is white. Every single one. While there may be the back of a head shown for a split-second, there isn't a person of color to be found anywhere in the two-and-a-half minute spot that features Mitt Romney, all chiseled central casting looks and very carefully edited diction, vowing to restore our country to its former greatness as Hans Zimmer-style orchestration swells to a sweeping crescendo. And again, while over the next few days you're probably going to hear a lot of people talk about how this is a huge oversight on the part of the Romney campaign, it absolutely is not. It's exactly according to plan. Because Romney knows who he has to win over in a commanding way and right out of the gate -- white, Christian middle-Americans either outwardly reeling or quietly concerned over what they see happening to "their" country.

Only breathtaking incompetence on the part of Team Romney would lead to a campaign ad in which a substantial portion of the electorate -- one growing at an exponential rate -- wasn't represented at all, even in the interest of cynical pandering. Sure, Romney spokesman Eric Fehnstrom screwed up royally by coming right out and admitting that his guy is an "Etch-a-Sketch" who can erase his positions and draw entirely new ones at will, but that was an off-the-cuff comment -- this is a carefully constructed promotional campaign. And what the Romney camp is saying with this is unmistakable: Regardless of the rise in status that minorities have enjoyed over the past few decades, culminating in the election of a black man to the highest office in the land, good, old-fashioned white people are still the backbone of this country -- the "real" Americans. No, Romney isn't denigrating black and brown people -- not directly -- he's simply and subtly letting it be known to those who need to hear it that when he talks about restoring our country, he means going back to a 1950s, Pleasantville vision of America -- a time before, well, everything became so darned complicated and less "pleasant" because minorities suddenly seemed to be a powerful cultural and political force throughout the nation.

For the very specific audience Romney is attempting to appeal to in the "Promise of America" ad, there's an original sin to blame for the tumultuous times our country has been forced to endure recently, one that wasn't a singular event but has instead played out over several decades. That sin: change -- progress. Specifically the loss of influence by the people who had traditionally been in control of the nation and who could rest comfortably in the privilege bequeathed to them by God and the founders -- coincidentally, people who looked very much like the smiling faces featured in the Romney ad.

Romney has made it clear right off the bat: He's reaching out to white America.

And that makes it clearer than ever just what the choice is going to be this November.

Action News

Thank God. You'll be glad to know that Fox News's exhaustive internal investigation into the wholly unacceptable and absolutely unauthorized airing of a four-minute-long piece of anti-Obama political propaganda, multiple times, is now over.

Obviously, strong action will be taken against those responsible for this gargantuan error, one that unfairly smears the good name of Fox News Channel as a bulwark of fair and balanced journalism.

Right?

The Huffington Post: Fox & Friends Associate Producer Supposedly Behind Anti-Obama Video Will Keep His Job/6.1.12

And with that, we roll credits. Hope you enjoyed the show.

Quote of the Day

"Actually, while I’m not sure about the claims by the various people who have reported that Obama has at least participated at times with them in homosexual acts, this certainly lends some credence."

-- Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute on why President Obama might have publicly expressed support for gay marriage

I'll have more on it tomorrow in the Daily Banter, but I just had to get this little gem out there. Oh, and this is actually kind of the least insane thing he said on the subject of homosexuality.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go drink myself into a coma.

Quote of the Month

"I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married."

-- President Barack Obama

Whether you believe this decision to be politically motivated doesn't really matter -- the bottom line is that it's historic, it carries significant risk for any sitting president up for reelection, and it affirms in no uncertain terms Obama's ongoing commitment to gay rights in this country.

Yesterday's blow struck against both basic civil rights and the march of progress by the scared-shitless yokels of North Carolina means almost nothing in the long run. As I've said many times here -- freedom expands. And no matter how many asinine laws are passed out of ignorance and prejudice, the genie is already out of the bottle and gay marriage will become a reality throughout the nation eventually.

It's only a matter of time -- and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it.

Adding: Andrew Sullivan's take on this is, not surprisingly given the subject matter, especially lovely and powerful.

Adding Further: This. The president needs to draw the line between himself and his opponents in the Republican party as distinctly as possible right now. And by taking the stand he did, he couldn't have made the choice any clearer.

For the Record

Kevin Drum over at Mother Jones spells it out, for those on the left still choosing to be pissy and obstinate:

"And yet, there's still.....the entire rest of his record. After all, Obama deserves to be judged by ordinary human standards, not by standards of perfection. A sidebar to Paul's piece lists Obama's top 50 accomplishments, and I think it was mistake to create a list so long. It ends up looking like the usual boring laundry list that any president can trumpet. Better to pare it down to ten really top accomplishments in order to highlight how many truly major accomplishments Obama has been responsible for. So I did. Except I couldn't get there. I cut it down to 13 and got stuck. Here they are, in the same order as the original WaMo list:

1. Passed Health Care Reform

2. Passed the Stimulus

3. Passed Wall Street Reform

4. Ended the War in Iraq

6. Eliminated Osama bin laden

7. Turned Around U.S. Auto Industry

9. Repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

12. Reversed Bush Torture Policies

14. Kicked Banks Out of Federal Student Loan Program

16. Boosted Fuel Efficiency Standards

18. Passed Mini Stimuli (July 22, 2010; December 17, 2010; December 23, 2011)

22. Created Conditions to Begin Closing Dirtiest Power Plants

27. Achieved New START Treaty

These are all big deals. Big fucking deals, to quote our vice president. Unless you're just bound and determined to sulk in your tent while insisting that healthcare was a sellout and the stimulus was too small and Dodd-Frank was feeble and the mini stimuli were more like micro stimuli, there's just no way around the fact that this is a historically colossal set of progressive accomplishments, especially in the face of a historically hostile political environment."

Now compare that list against anything you'd get from any of the current crop of sociopathic, war-on-women-waging, hyper-religious, red-meat pandering clowns running for president as a Republican. I'm not gonna let up on this, folks: You have to consider political reality because in the end that's the wall you come up against. You get this president or you get one of them. And if you've got even three brain cells in your head, the choice is immaculately clear.

Any other arguments are a waste.

Mother Jones: Barack Obama's Had a Pretty Damn Good Presidency/3.11.12

The Choice Is Yours

I want to post one more excerpt from Jonathan Chait's impressive piece in New York Magazine on the "GOPacalypse" -- what 2012 means to the Republican party in its current incarnation and why the right is casting the coming election in such stark, portentous terms.

I'm not sure it's ever been laid out more clearly just what's at stake this coming November.

"The Republicans have gained the House and stand poised to win control of the Senate. If they can claw out a presidential win and hold on to Congress, they will have a glorious two-year window to restore the America they knew and loved, to lock in transformational change, or at least to wrench the status quo so far rightward that it will take Democrats a generation to wrench it back. The cost of any foregone legislative compromises on health care or the deficit would be trivial compared to the enormous gains available to a party in control of all three federal branches.

On the other hand, if they lose their bid to unseat Obama, they will have mortgaged their future for nothing at all. And over the last several months, it has appeared increasingly likely that the party’s great all-or-nothing bet may land, ultimately, on nothing. In which case, the Republicans will have turned an unfavorable outlook into a truly bleak one in a fit of panic. The deepest effect of Obama’s election upon the Republicans’ psyche has been to make them truly fear, for the first time since before Ronald Reagan, that the future is against them."

So that's it. That's why your vote is so important. Why you can't sit this one out just because the current president hasn't given you everything you wanted. I talk a lot about the acceptance of political reality and get a lot of push-back for doing so, but a fact is a fact; you can try to avoid it all you want, but the bottom line is always what things really come down to. And the bottom line in this case is that if you don't have Barack Obama in office, flawed though he may be at times, you will have Mitt Romney, or Rick Santorum, or Newt Gingrich. Complain all you want, but those are your only choices for who will run the country next -- for who will, as Chait explains, likely set the tone for years to come.

Barack Obama will be President of the United States in January of 2013 -- or one of the current Republican candidates will, and he will be someone who's already professed or at least pandered to the panicked notion that we need to save America by restoring the proud traditions of a past that's no longer a viable option for us nor should it be.

That is your choice. And it's no choice at all.