True Majority: I don’t know what to do with you when you’re like this

I’m a great big monster liberal. I’m on a bunch of liberal mailing lists. Most of the time it’s rabble-rousing for stuff I can get on board with — the public option, reproductive rights, etc.

But today’s email is an example of how we liberals sometimes come across as poncy brats who need a punch in the neck.

Poncy brat.


Dear Victoria,

Obama wants to freeze spending on everything BUT war.

Tell Congress to show they disagree by not applauding the war in Afghanistan.

President Obama makes his first State of the Union address tomorrow night, and he’s going to call for us to cap spending on everything EXCEPT the military.1

Getting a grip on the deficit is fine. But spending on war and weapons is the FIRST place we should look to save money, not the LAST. Obama’s priorities are backwards, and there’s something you can do about it.

Congress gets the final vote on how to spend tax dollars. And their reaction to the State of the Union — whether they clap or shout ‘you lie!’ — is an important first barometer of opinion.2

So let’s tell Congress not to clap when Obama proposes spending $100 billion on the war in Afghanistan while freezing spending on everything else.

Once you’ve told your members of Congress to not applaud for war, make sure to tune in tomorrow night.

Asking members not to clap may seem like a very small action to stop a very big war. But the reaction to this speech is critical. How Congress reacts, and what they react to, will dominate the news after the speech.3

If we watch closely, this will show who’s with us on ending the war, and who’s still willing to spend more on Afghanistan than on educating our children, fixing health care or creating jobs.

Tell your members of Congress that you’ll be watching, and you’ll thank them not to applaud a war in Afghanistan.


Two major malfunctions that make me want to gouge my eyes out:

1) If you have a war you better damn well pay for it. You can make a lot of things go away by not paying for them but war is not one of them.

I keep trying to write another sentence here but I start getting really angry and wanting to use the eff word so I’m just going to mention that there are 115,000 Americans in Iraq and soon will be 68,000 in Afghanistan, and I hate these wars so bad and I want our people to come home but by God our people are there and paying for what they need is the rock-bottom least we can do.

I bet a steak dinner you can poll any room and that opinion is the true majority.

2) If you are contacting your congressperson to tell them when to applaud, you are contacting them too much.

Now I gotta go punch something. Not a liberal. But something.


Draws. Sweats. Eats too much sugar-free candy.

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. Tory says:

    Also: DoD spending varies insanely from Abrams tanks to base housing, health care for elderly vets, foreign aid and intelligence. Not saying all this money is justified. Just saying the True Majority email makes progressives look like punks.


  2. Tory says:


    I cannot disagree that American defense spending is… unusual.

    I cannot disagree that there is room for improvement — even easy, popular improvement! — in our defense spending. Outlawing no-bid contracts? Using Marines as Marines, not policemen? Maybe later we can apply the principles of military health care to public health care! The possibilities: THEY ARE ENDLESS.

    I cannot disagree that we’re mired in an incredible mess in the Middle East that we and the UK have cultivated for over seventy years.

    Verily starting war in Afghanistan was a bad idea badly handled (but I share the blame because we had a crappy president, a crappy media and a crappy Democratic party, and none of those manifested overnight.)

    Verily starting war in Iraq will go down in history as an example of good people supporting an evil thing. It reminds me, as I’ve mentioned before, of the fable of the Fox and the Hedgehog: “When we throw off rulers… who have already made the most of us, we [may] lay ourselves open to others. who will make us bleed yet more freely.”

    But note even the conversation we’re having now is more intelligent than the True Majority email. “Tell your congressman not to applaud! War bad, don’t pay for it! Bork!” And that’s why progressives sometimes look like punks.

  3. Lance says:

    Game over for you maybe. I’m on a bunker list.

  4. For a value of “win” equal to “lose”. Who wins a war is not merely a question of spending– it involves, among other things, who can project their power long enough to destroy the enemy’s ability to wage war. Projecting power off-continent is… tricky. Besides, cheese off any of the nuclear powers, and it’s Game Over.

    That we have an absurdly high military budget and yet we’re still getting IEDed in Iraq and are accomplishing approximately nothing in Afghanistan merely demonstrates that the problems we have there cannot be solved by force of arms. Compared to the 19th century and earlier, relatively few problems these days can be.

  5. Lance says:

    That’s “Krauthammer”, of course.

  6. Lance says:

    I totes agree, but for a quibble on point #1. Our defense spending is several times larger than Russia’s and China’s combined. Which doesn’t sound nearly as impressive as the following: more than two fifths of global military spending is ours. If we were a little more careful with the purse strings (like by opting for the super deluxe laser-guided armor piercing bunker busting bombs with Charles Kraudhammer’s face on them instead of the triple OMG super deluxe LGAPBBBWCKFOT and a puppy), we could start a few more wars all at once and still cut the military budget. We could start a war with everyone else and, if we took out Canada first (and why wouldn’t we), we would have a damn good underdog shot at winning the whole thing.

%d bloggers like this: