Barack Obama Thinks He Can Win Your Vote by Exhibiting Leadership During a Time of Crisis, but He Did Not Count on the Awesome Power of Michael Brown

800px-Brownies_stacked_on_a_plate

Mmmmmmm, brownies…. What were we talking about?

You might call President Obama’s handling of Hurricane Sandy many things, but don’t be fooled: he is only demonstrating superb leadership because he wants your votes. How do I know this? Well, the paragon of crisis management, Bush-era FEMA head Michael “heckuva job, Brownie” Brown, says so. Specifically, he said that Obama’s warnings about the storm were “premature”:

Brown, now a talk radio host in Colorado, said Obama was likely trying to get ahead of the storm politically.

“[He] doesn’t want anybody to accuse him of not being on top of it or not paying attention or playing politics in the middle of it,” Brown said. “He probably figured Sunday was a good day to do a press conference.”

As we now know, the storm was pretty bad, in the sense of being the largest Atlantic hurricane in recorded history. Some people known to be partisan hacks had nothing but praise for how the president handled it. By “partisan hack,” I am referring to the Republican governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, who explicitly refused to say anything mean about the president on Fox News. This is, of course, the news network that amended its bylaws in 2009 to require all on-screen presenters to say at least one bad thing about the president every 47 seconds. [Ed. note: that last sentence is not actually true, but dammit, it feels true to me.] Continue reading

Share

“Here, have a taco”

With the news of Meat Loaf’s endorsement of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, it may be worth taking a moment to remember his finest performance. While Meat Loaf has undoubtedly had a distinguished career, it was his duet with Chef for 1998’s Chef Aid album that stands above all the rest, including his consumption of an animated taco on a two-dimensional stage.

South Park – Chef Aid – Tonight Is Right for Love from Stanley Trent on Vimeo.
 

 

Share

The Libertarian Dream World

Ian Boudreau seems to have captured the idealistically ethereal nature of libertarian ideas in today’s political discourse:


Discuss.

Share

My Live-Facebooking of the Presidential Debate, October 3, 2012

For the heck of it, I went back and copied my stream-of-consciousness rants from Wednesday night’s debacle. I mean debate. The now-mythical evening will probably puzzle political scientists for a few minutes, but it at least gave us some memes. (Edited for typos and whatnot):

7:59 p.m. I’m live tweeting this bee-yotch! (I give my ADD 10 minutes before I start seriously thinking about boobs) #debate

8:02 p.m. The last time we had a Presidential #debate, I didn’t even have a Twitter account. How did I share my thoughts? How did we do anything???

8:04 p.m. I’m sure Jim Lehrer is a great #debate moderator, but you know who we need? Mills Lane, that’s who.

8:06 p.m. Obama may have the best excuse in history for skipping out on an anniversary dinner. #debate

8:07 p.m. Since the candidates always answer the first question with a “glad to be here” soliloquy, shouldn’t the first question just be “‘Sup?”

8:08 p.m. Is someone writing down Romney’s 5 points? Because I’m sure he’ll change them tomorrow.

8:12 p.m. Just for the record, Lehrer asked Romney if he had a question for Obama, and he’s making a speech. #debate

8:13 p.m. Okay, seriously, Jim, cut Romney off if he won’t ask a question!!! #debate

8:17 p.m. It’s hard to make accurate statements about Romney’s tax plan when he stays so coy about it. #debate

8:19 p.m. “Now he’s saying that his big bold idea is ‘never mind.'” #debate

8:22 p.m. Romney keeps referencing conversations he’s had with ordinary people. We’ve seen how that tends to go for him, though… #debate

8:23 p.m. Did Romney really just say his first priority is jobs? #debate

8:27 p.m. “Going forward with the status quo won’t work” says Romney. You mean like Republicans blocking everything Obama tries to do? #debate Continue reading

Share

Republican Challenger Portrays Nancy Pelosi as Leader of a Zombie Cult, Obviously Doesn’t Realize How Awesome That Would Be

Republicans, to borrow a phrase, have a pop-culture problem. To borrow another phrase, while Democrats get to rub elbows with A-listers, Republicans get to “shake Jon Voight’s cold lizard hand.” The downward slide continued this week, with a, uh, memorable ad from a California race.

The plucky challenger for Nancy Pelosi’s seat, John Dennis, has put out an ad depicting Pelosi as some sort of zombie cult leader engaged in animal sacrifice. I do not condone animal sacrifice as a general rule, but I also know the difference between literalism and satire (more so than most Republicans.) What I fail to see, however, is how depicting Nancy Pelosi as leader of some sort of zombie cult–possibly even a zombie army!–is going to make people not want to vote for her. Seriously, who wouldn’t want someone who could command a zombie army as their elected representative?

Let me first say that I don’t believe I have ever heard a Republican candidate address someone as “dude” before. It’s strangely refreshing, while at the same time highly unsettling. That said, the actress portraying Nancy Pelosi appears to have accepted this gig immediately after her final rejection from all the suburban L.A. community theater programs. On a very, very good day, she might pass for a Poor Man’s Jessica Walter, but she’s not likely to even manage the notoriety of a Johanna Goldsmith with this role.

Seriously, though, the knowledge that even the tiniest possibility exists that Nancy Pelosi leads a secretive army of the undead makes me want to fly out to Cali and commit a little in-person voter fraud come November.

(Note to Republicans: The previous sentence is an example of sarcasm. I do not intend to commit in-person voter fraud in California or anywhere else. Nevertheless, feel free to misinterpret me and discuss my blog on Fox and Friends. I need to monetize this biatch.)

Share

I’m already boycotting CNN

Nancy_Grace

Avert your eyes…

With the first Presidential Debate coming up in a couple of days, it must be time for a boycott! Ultraviolet, which does some excellent work, I must say, is calling on people to boycott CNN’s coverage of the debatesuntil they fire Eric Erickson:

The first presidential debate is just two days away—and it’s a huge opportunity for all of us to send a strong message to CNN: Condoning sexism is bad for business.

CNN has remained silent since Erickson’s outrageous comments referring to the first night of the Democratic National Convention as the “The Vagina Monologues” Almost unbelievable, considering this was nowhere near his first offense. From defending Rush Limbaugh when he called a Georgetown graduate student a “slut,” to accusing women in the Obama administration of pushing American intervention in Libya “like women drivers” with “no plan,” “no map,” and “no shopping list.” (seriously.)

It’s not like firing Erickson would actually do anything to improve the tone of public discourse. Another hydra head would pop up to take his place, and the entire right wing would have an additional whining point to bring up at every opportunity. Still, the message is important, and I wholeheartedly agree that Erickson’s rhetoric tends towards the toxic.

This has nothing to do with free speech rights, by the way, so please, nobody waste the nation’s time by bringing that up. The government isn’t trying to shut Erickson down, private citizens exercising their economic power of the purse are the ones doing this.

I’m sure someone or many someones will weep that liberals are hating on Erickson just because he has an opinion that differs from theirs. I actually love when people make this argument, because to me it signals that the speaker has no intention of actually defending the substance of those opinions. They just want to wail and gnash their teeth that the liberals are being mean to them. If your only retort is that you have a right to your opinion, it could simply signal that you have reached an impasse with an opponent. If that is your opening retort, though, it suggests that you do not actually have an argument, or just can’t be bothered to defend or explain it. Just saying.

At any rate, I will not be participating in the boycott because I do not need to. I refuse to watch CNN as long as they give air time to Nancy Grace. She has done more damage to our concepts of criminal justice and basic jurisprudence (it’s a legal term, look it up) than anyone else in recent history, in my humble opinion.

Photo credit: ‘Nancy Grace’ by Vidiot [CC-BY-SA-2.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

Share

Paul Ryan: The Media is Biased Because Shut Up

Paul Ryan talked to Chris Wallace on Fox News today to start floating excuses in case Romney and he lose in November. Specifically, it’s the liberal media’s fault, because the media is liberal. Via the unabashedly-liberal blog PoliticusUSA:

WALLACE: But where have you seen it? Where have you seen it in this campaign where you feel they’re judging you and Romney by one standard and Obama and Biden by another?

RYAN: I don’t think — I’m not going to go into a tit-for-tat or litigate this thing. But as a conservative, I’ve long believed and long felt that there is inherit media bias. And I think anybody with objectivity would believe that that’s the case.

Shorter version: Paul Ryan believes the media have a liberal bias, and if you disagree, then you must have a liberal bias too, hippie.

(Note that I try to use “media” as a plural whenever I can, because that’s what they are.)

Since people never know anything except what their television spoon-feeds them, of course liberally-biased media would tip them to the Democrats, and that’s why Republicans never win elections!

Is that an unfair way to characterize Ryan’s words? I think not, but you’re welcome to try to prove otherwise.

Also, he said “tit.” Heh heh.

Anyway, he really shouldn’t give up hope yet. He’s still got voter suppression, and we now that he’s got registration fraud working for him!

Share

The Election Gets Surreal, Yo

The 2012 election season has already been a smorgasbord of weirdness, but now it has crossed over into some sort of sublime remix wonderland. Witness President Obama’s 99 Problems Political Remix (lyrics NSFW):

You definitely want to stick it out to the last line.

Share

Hello, I’m the Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I Don’t Believe We’ve Met.

578107_78992564As we all know by now, presidential candidate Mitt Romney thinks that just under half of the country does not take full responsibility for their own lives, blah blah blah. No need to rehash all of that here. The meme has, rather interestingly, coincided with another Republican cause célèbre, voter ID laws. (Note to right-wingers: I will understand if you are uncomfortable using the French phrase “cause célèbre.” If you prefer, you may use the alternate phrase, “freedom fame.”)

Specifically, a Pennsylvania Republican is not concerned about possible disenfranchisement from the law he is sponsoring, apparently because people without photo ID just aren’t taking enough responsibility for their lives:

As Pennsylvania’s strict voter ID law returns to the lower court for reconsideration, its original sponsor, Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R-PA), told KDKA Radio Wednesday morning that his law will only disenfranchise “lazy” people, like the ones Mitt Romney was talking about in the leaked video of a private fundraiser.

When pressed on the issue, Rep. Metcalfe had this to say:

“I don’t believe any legitimate voter that actually wants to exercise that right and takes on the according responsiblity that goes with that right to secure their photo ID will be disenfranchised. As Mitt Romney said, 47% of the people that are living off the public dole, living off their neighbors’ hard work, and we have a lot of people out there that are too lazy to get up and get out there and get the ID they need. If individuals are too lazy, the state can’t fix that.” [Emphasis added]

He is both right and wrong, but let me first say this: Republicans, you have a problem with the word “legitimate.” Seriously, you should consider not using that word for a long while.

Now then, Rep. Metcalfe is right that the state cannot compel a “lazy” person to take an interest in politics or society. I would think that would be obvious. Here’s the rub, though: the state cannot compel a person to jump through arbitrary hoops to participate in society. Rep. Metcalfe is placing the blame on people who have lived their lives, by all accounts perfectly well, without the documents that he now says they need in order to vote. I call bullshit.

The people affected by Rep. Metcalfe’s proposed law would need to obtain documentation, typically at a cost, in order to participate in their own democracy. Study after study has shown that voter ID laws are a solution in search of a problem. The only reason certain people would need to obtain a driver’s license or other photo ID, therefore, would be to vote. It would be an expense solely associated with the act of voting, and there is a name for that: a poll tax.

Meet the Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1964:

SECTION 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

SECTION 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Efforts to make people incur expense as a condition of voting has quite the dirty history in this country. Let’s not tiptoe back into our utterly-backwards past whilst trying to blame it on a mythical “lazy” class of people, okay?

Share

Generalissimo Romney

a-MITT-ROMNEY-640x468

Via Huffington Post

The latest gaffe (metedura de pata en español) from the Romney camp involves a question of skin tone. I honestly cannot believe I am writing this.

Mitt Romney appeared to be a touch more tanned during an TV interview for Spanish-language channel Univision on Wednesday, prompting suggestions the Republican leader had piled on the make up to make himself more appealing to Latino voters.

I desperately want to call bullshit on this, so that I may continue to cling to a modicum of sanity in this world.

I’m not the only one. Adam Mordechai at Upworthy posits a few hypotheses, and I fully expect to see some good SNL skits about this soon. I just have two comments to direct to the floundering presidential candidates.

1. Don’t refer to anyone as an “illegal alien.” I would say don’t do that on Univision (seriously, what is wrong with you?) in particular, but just don’t say it anywhere.

2. You’ve got a meme here, Señor. I say own it. If you have the ability to transition between former Massachusetts Governor Romney and Generalissimo Romney, you need to own that shit. You might not be the first Generalissimo, but you could be the greatest.

Share