when the status quo frustrates.

…but you know, it’s really kind of okay to “call a bunch of people who are retards, retards!” As long as it’s Rush Limbaugh doing it.

Friday, February 5th, 2010

Photobucket

Remember this?

According to the Wall Street Journal, Rahm Emanuel called liberal activists who wanted to run ads against conservative Democrats “f—— retarded” in a closed-door meeting at the White House. On her Facebook page, Palin likened Emanuel’s “slur on all God’s children with cognitive and developmental disabilities” to using the “N-word,” something she deemed “unacceptable” and “heartbreaking.” Emanuel later issued an apology to Special Olympics chairman and CEO Tim Shriver.

However, Palin’s conservative cohort Rush Limbaugh took offense to people, presumably including Palin, protesting Emanuel’s remark. On his radio show, Limbaugh lamented that “our political correct society is acting like some giant insult’s taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards.” That comment caused Greg Sargent to request a reaction from Palin’s spokeswoman.

Yesterday, when asked for comment on Limbaugh’s use of the “r” word in a recent broadcast, Palin spokeswoman told Greg Sargent of the Washington Post, “Governor Palin believes crude and demeaning name-calling at the expense of others is disrespectful.”

BUT!

Today, Stapleton claims the statement was meant generally and she was not specifically referring to Limbaugh.

…I mean, if he’s gonna tirelessly promote her new book after also tirelessly promoting her for Veep during the 2008 elections...it’s not like he’s some kind of nasty, sneaking D-e-m-o-c-r-a-t, after all!

“Idiot Wind!”

Wednesday, October 29th, 2008

(snork!)

Gov. Sarah Palin on Wednesday said Sen. Barack Obama has ties to a Columbia University professor who she said is “a former spokesperson for the Palestinian Liberation Organization.” Palin said her assertion “is not negative campaigning to call someone out on their record.”

“It seems that there is yet another radical professor from the neighborhood who spent a lot of time with Barack Obama going back several years,” Palin said at an event in Bowling Green, Ohio.

Khalidi is a leading scholar of Middle Eastern studies at Columbia, and he was a contemporary of Obama’s while on the faculty of the University of Chicago. Khalidi has been a harsh critic of U.S. foreign policy toward Israel and has accused the country of “occupying” Palestinian territories. But he has denied acting as a PLO spokesman during a seven-year period in the 1970s and 1980s.

Khalidi said Wednesday, “I am not speaking to the media at this time, and certainly not until this idiot wind passes.

That’s just awesome. I wish I’d thought of that. How appropos!

The paper reported that a young Palestinian-American woman recited a poem at the farewell party that accused the Israeli government of terrorism for its treatment of Palestinians and was highly critical of U.S. support of Israel.

Being critical of U.S. support of Israel + being connected to anything associated in American pop culture with Muslims = terrorist ties. Which means that since I am friends with a Lebanese dude, I’m probably a “Hamas spokesperson.” And we’d best not go anywhere near what my OTHER friendship with an Iranian dude named, of all things, Hossein says about me. I should probably stop fighting the exposure trend, haul my dynamite-lined burqa out of the closet and just openly wear that bitch with pride.

The McCain campaign accused the Los Angeles paper of “intentionally suppressing” a videotape it obtained from that dinner and demanded that it release the footage. The Times said it won’t release the footage because a reporter promised a source that the video would not be made public.

Asked why the McCain campaign was bringing the matter up six months after the article appeared, an aide replied, “Because we are one week away from potentially electing Barack Obama.”

Heee! You KNOW it’s bad when they’re openly admitting it’s an act of last-minute desperation.

Earlier Wednesday, Palin delivered her second policy address of the campaign season.

Leaving it a little late, aren’t you, Sarey? Or maybe we shouldn’t even open that can of worms right now…

Palin pointed to her experience as governor as evidence she can help the U.S. achieve energy security.

“Whatever the good ol’ boys are running these days, I know it’s not the state of Alaska,” she said in Toledo, Ohio.

Er,Ted Stevens? ….Ted Stevens….Ted Stevens..?

The Alaska governor stressed expanding drilling, using nuclear power and tapping into the “American ingenuity” to solve the energy problem.

Tapping into the “American ingenuity” as a domestic self-sustaining energy source!

Well, it’s a thought, but I think the movie pretty much proved that it isn’t really that good an idea in the long run.

I can’t read any more. Teh stupid, it burns!

(waving hand wildly in the air) Me, me! I have one!

Tuesday, October 28th, 2008

From MyRightWingDad:

Subject: Fwd: Father/Daughter talk

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many
others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and
among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to
support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a
feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had
participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her
father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he
thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on
the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed
objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she
indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in
school. Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA,
and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was
taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left
her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn’t even
have time for a boyfriend, and didn’t really have many college friends
because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, ‘How is your friend Audrey doing?’ She
replied, ‘Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes , she
never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus;
college for her is a blast. She’s always invited to all the parties and
lots of times she doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung
over.’ Her wise father asked his daughter, ‘Why don’t you go to the
Dean’s office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your
friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and
certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.’

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired
back, ‘That’s a crazy idea, and how would that be fair! I’ve worked really
hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work!
Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked
my tail off!

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, ‘Welcome to the Republican
party.’

If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between
Republican and Democrat I’m all ears.

(more…)

Sarah Palin Draws Large Crowd in Beaver

Friday, October 24th, 2008

I tried. Really, really hard, I tried to stop myself from reproducing the above actual real, live news headline here. As you can see, I failed utterly.

BWAHAHAHAHA!

While we’re on the topic of bizarre Republican presidential campaign news items, the cops apparently finally noticed that the “B” cut into this broad’s face was backwards, making it extraordinarily unlikely that anybody other than herself inflicted it, and she has confessed that no, no large black man actually mugged her and then assaulted her because she had a McCain bumper sticker. (via) It’s funny how people adapt their personal mental illnesses to their situation. I actually feel sorry for the McCain campaign, being used by this person who clearly needs professional help and lots of it, pronto. Then again, since the McCain campaign is not too interested in health care reform, maybe they deserve it.

And unsurprisingly, the voting is already all effed up. Sigh…

Barack Obama: See If He Really Has YOUR Best Interests In Mind!!

Thursday, October 9th, 2008

Yes, and how you find that out is definitely by taking this quiz!

Random gems:

“Some say Barack Obama’s plans to implement sweeping environmental regulations will raise the cost of gas, groceries, heating and air conditioning. Do you favor or oppose Obama’s environmental plans?”

Favor
Oppose

“Some” say..?

“Some people think the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses. Others think that government should do more to solve our country’s problems. Which comes closer to your own view?”

Government doing too much.
Government should do more.

In the immortal words of The Daily Show, “Could you be less specific, please?”

“Some say Barack Obama’s plan to raise taxes and increase trade barriers are similar to those created by President Herbert Hoover in the 1930s, which contributed to worsening America’s economy. Do you think Obama’s plans will worsen the economy as well, or do you think they will help the economy?”

Worsen the economy
Help the economy

And are you also a McCarthy-era communist, and if so, can we just hang you for treason now..?

It just gets better and better…

“Recently, Barack Obama was asked when he thought life begins, in reference to the issue of abortion. Obama responded by saying that decision was above his paygrade. Knowing that the next president may be able to appoint two or three U.S. Supreme Court Justices, who may be called to make rulings on the issue of Abortion; do you support or oppose a president who does not know when life begins?”

Support
Oppose

And of course, the crown jewel…no, I really didn’t make this up.

If you knew you had a step brother who was living in a slum and barely surviving on $300 a year, would you help them financially?

Yes
No

Would I do anything to not end up on the side of people who come up with this amazingly, ridiculously bad shit..? Pretty much!

If only I’d known!

Sunday, October 5th, 2008

But even though it came too late to save me, I can at least reach out a helping hand to my fellow Americans who haven’t yet sat down and slogged through all ninety minutes of last week’s veep debate.

Here’s the condensed version. This is really all you need to see. Trust me.

Are they trying to make the Democrats LOSE???

Friday, October 3rd, 2008

(Now updated below the fold)

So tell me again why taking a principled stand and threatening to withhold your vote (and meaning it) is just a meaningless symbolic gesture, and could never, ever in a million years affect a politician’s stance on anything?

I just received an e-mail from Democrats.com, quite obviously a group as partisan as they come. Here’s part of it:

Friday: Last Chance to Stop Paulson’s Plunder

(1) Call your Representative at 800-473-6711 or 800-828-0498 or 202-224-3121 and say “No Bailout!”
(2) Find or Organize a “No Bailout” protest near you:
http://bailoutmainstreet.com/
(3) Visit your Representative’s local office

The Senate’s 74-25 vote for Paulson’s Plunder came as no surprise, since the Senate is run by and for millionaires. So now it’s back to the House of Representatives, where we shocked those millionaires on Monday by defeating their bailout bill by 228-205.

A terrified army of corporate lobbyists is working around the clock to switch 13 votes, but only 7 have switched so far – Jim Ramstad (R-MN), John Shadegg (R-AZ), Zach Wamp (R-TN), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Shelley Berkley (D-NV), Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) and John Lewis (D- GA). Other possible switches include Pat Tiberi (R-OH), Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), John Yarmouth (D-KY), Brian Bilbray (R-CA), Steve Rothman (D-NJ), Lee Terry (R-NE), Jim Gerlach (R-PA), Tim Murphy (R-PA), Jason Altmire (D-PA), and Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ). But others may switch from Yes to No, including Ed Markey (D-MA), Charlie Melancon (D-LA), and Spencer Bachus (R-AL).

(1) Call your Representative today!
First check how your Representative voted on Monday (and note switches above): http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml

If (s)he voted NO, say “Thank you for helping stop the Bailout on Monday. Don’t betray us now by voting YES on Friday, or I will vote NO against you on Election Day.”

If (s)he voted YES, say “I’m outraged that you supported the Bailout on Monday, and I will remember on Election Day. If you want my vote on Election Day, you must vote NO on Friday.”

Now maybe I’m reading it wrong, but it looks to me like Democrats.com is claiming that any success they had on Monday, and any success they might have today, is because a nation of energized progressives threatened to withhold their votes from Democrats (AND Republicans) unless they agreed to enact a progressive agenda.

A plan of action I fully endorse, by the way.

(more…)

Very brief, possibly totally premature, weighing in on the veep debate. (I just finished watching it for cryin’ out loud, cut me some slack..!)

Thursday, October 2nd, 2008

What I got out of it:

1. Sarah Palin did not say anything that was so stupid it was shriekingly funny, like she has been doing in her last several televised interview bytes.

2. Joe Biden did not put his foot in his mouth like he is so often fond of doing…I think we all remember his reaction to learning that Barack Obama was going to run for the Democratic presidential nomination..?

3. I didn’t get the impression that Gwen Ifill treated either candidate in a biased fashion. However, I do not care for Sarah Palin, so I may simply be unable to see if she did. Anybody else have a different opinion?

4. Sarah Palin quite often failed to even remotely answer the question directed at her by Ifill, who did not attempt, as Lehrer did with both candidates during the presidential debate, to force her to stay on track. Joe Biden did answer all questions, and even when Palin left herself open to some serious pwnage, like when she burbled brightly about how she’s “clearly not a Washington insider, ya know, all this ‘first taking one stance and then another,’” he did not follow through with said pwnage (“Bridge to Nowhere,” anyone?). I would say that both Ifill and Biden were deliberately avoiding putting any real pressure on Palin, Ifill to avoid seeming biased (while requiring candidates to answer the actual question posed is hardly biased, it would guaranteed be construed that way, since she would not have done so with Biden as he did not need to be required) and Biden to avoid seeming sexist.

5. It was fairly brilliant of Biden to throw out that remark about “just because I’m a man” and then to choke up. A woman could never in a million years have gotten away with it. A billion years. But on him, a man who has established a 35-year reputation of not being a girly-boy (yeah, maybe someday we’ll be past all that, meh) it came across as giving him not only a very human side, but a complete puncturing of Palin’s posturing as Superparent. Others, even others who don’t live in the American heartland of Wasilla, Alaska (wtf?) do indeed have life crises involving their children and parenting! …imagine!

6. Biden’s takedown of current Veep Cheney and, by subtle extension, Palin’s hearty endorsement of Cheney’s veep power grabs, was good enough to send chills down my cynical spine.

Anybody else’s impressions are welcome!

Weighing in Verbosely on the First Presidential Debate

Sunday, September 28th, 2008

Well, I just watched the debates myself. Via YouTube. The easiest YouTube to find was via Fox News’s feed, which was annoying because they so often did closeups or split-screens of the candidates and never did wider shots– so I couldn’t judge for myself if it was true, that McCain was supposedly never able to look at Obama in the eye. But even regardless of that, McCain came across shifty; Obama, self-assured. Which just means, if Obama was saying evil things too, then they were doubly dangerous, because he was able to present them as though they were reasonable.

Now, as anyone who reads my posts knows, I’m critical of Obama/Biden. More than McCain/Palin, actually– everybody with half a brain already knows how evil the Republicans are; I just want people to assess more rigorously just exactly how much of a lesser evil the Democrats really are– if indeed, they are a lesser evil at all. Anyway, if you’re an Obama fan, I urge you to look at my analysis and tell me where you think I’m being unfair. Maybe I’ll see the light. If I did, I can tell you I’d be much happier in general right now.

Let’s just review some of the things Obama said in the debate. (All emphasis mine, of course.)

We’ve spent over $600 billion so far, soon to be $1 trillion. We have lost over 4,000 lives. We have seen 30,000 wounded, and most importantly, from a strategic national security perspective, al Qaeda is resurgent, stronger now than at any time since 2001. We took our eye off the ball… So I think the lesson to be drawn is that we should never hesitate to use military force, and I will not, as president, in order to keep the American people safe. But we have to use our military wisely. And we did not use our military wisely in Iraq.

Wait– Iraq’s a clusterfuck… and so the lesson to be learned is that we should never hesitate to use military force??? Maybe we’d have a better chance of using our military wisely next time if we hesitated just a little bit more.

Now here’s Obama praising Bush and McCain’s Glorious Thrusting Surge:

Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families. They have done a brilliant job, and General Petraeus has done a brilliant job. But understand, that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war.

Actually, this is not even nearly so bad as when Obama went on Fox News recently to declare that the surge had “succeeded beyond our wildest dreams”.

Or,  as Juan Cole put it in his recent assessment, “The level of violence at this moment in Iraq is similar to what prevailed on average during one of the 20th century’s worst ethnic civil wars! It is still higher than the casualty rates in Sri Lanka and Kashmir, two of the worst ongoing conflicts in the world.”

But nice of Obama to internalize Bush/McCain talking points so well. I’m sure he’s run the numbers and it’ll win him more votes, so that’s all that matters, right?

(more…)

Weighing in Briefly on the First Presidential Debate

Saturday, September 27th, 2008

Best part of the whole debate:

When Jim Lehrer asked the candidates, “Much has been said about the lessons of Vietnam. What do you see as the lessons of Iraq?” McCain babbled about how awesomely we began there, how (for causes not even remotely articulated) we had a wee bit of a strategic stumble (managing also not to specify that said stumble stretched from about a month after we got there in 2003 til the end of last year) and finished up by announcing that we have won the Iraq War. (News to me.) Obama, who went second, then gently stepped in to say that, yeah, the actual lesson of the Iraq War that pretty much everybody (except McCain) has learned was, we should never have gone in there in the first place. Har.

Worst part of the whole debate:

Jim Lehrer’s first question: “Gentlemen, at this very moment tonight, where do you stand on the financial recovery plan?”

(Candidates each speak for several minutes, demonstrating remarkable ability to discuss their tax and spending platforms without once touching on the financial recovery plan.)

Jim Lehrer’s next question: “All right, let’s go back to my question. How do you all stand on the recovery plan? And talk to each other about it. We’ve got five minutes. We can negotiate a deal right here.”

(Candidates further demonstrate ability to say nothing to the point and also refuse, even when point-blank instructed by Lehrer, to speak to each other.)

Jim Lehrer’s next try: “All right, let’s go to the next lead question, which is essentially following up on this same subject. And you get two minutes to begin with, Senator McCain. And using your word “fundamental,” are there fundamental differences between your approach and Senator Obama’s approach to what you would do as president to lead this country out of the financial crisis?”

(Candidates argue about the differences between their tax and spending platforms. Neither apparently has any idea that we are even having a financial crisis.)

Jim, who has the patience of a saint and is my new hero: “All right. All right, speaking of things that both of you want, another lead question, and it has to do with the rescue — the financial rescue thing that we started — started asking about. And what — and the first answer is to you, Senator Obama. As president, as a result of whatever financial rescue plan comes about and the billion, $700 billion, whatever it is it’s going to cost, what are you going to have to give up, in terms of the priorities that you would bring as president of the United States, as a result of having to pay for the financial rescue plan?”

(Candidates go on as if they never even heard the question.)

Jim Lehrer: “What I’m trying to get at this is this. Excuse me if I may, senator. Trying to get at that you all — one of you is going to be the president of the United States come January. At the — in the middle of a huge financial crisis that is yet to be resolved. And what I’m trying to get at is how this is going to affect you not in very specific — small ways but in major ways and the approach to take as to the presidency.”

(Candidates suggest that maybe we’ll stop spending money on something or other, described respectively as “things that aren’t vital” (McCain) and “things we can cut out with a scalpel rather than hatchet” (Obama). I go to the internet and start looking up emigration requirements to Australia.)

Jim Lehrer: “Before we go to another lead question. Let me figure out a way to ask the same question in a slightly different way here. Are you — are you willing to acknowledge both of you that this financial crisis is going to affect the way you rule the country as president of the United States beyond the kinds of things that you have already — I mean, is it a major move? Is it going to have a major effect?”

Apparently not.

Can’t wait for the veep debate!

Joe. I find myself a little happier with your veep candidacy today.

Friday, September 19th, 2008

Via Shakesville:

So, after Joe Biden said, awesomely, that paying taxes is patriotic, Sarah Palin retorted, mendaciously, that raising taxes is “about killing jobs and hurting small businesses and making things worse.”

Biden’s response?

How many small businessmen are making one million, four hundred thousand–average in the top 1 percent. Give me a break. I remind my friend, John McCain, what he said–when Bush called for war and tax cuts–he said, it was immoral, immoral, to take a nation to war and not have anybody pay for it. I am so sick and tired of this phoniness. The truth of the matter is that we are in trouble. And the people who do not need a new tax cut should be willing, as patriotic Americans, to understand the way to get this economy back up on their feet is to give middle class taxpayers a break. We take the tax cut they’re getting and we give it to the middle class.

Too. Sweet!

It was so bad, I was almost hoping she’d suddenly start speaking in tongues. Anything to break up the cringefest. And yes, that would have been less embarrassing.

Friday, September 12th, 2008

You know, people in other countries watch this shit and so do total misogynists. Then again, why worry about what people in other countries think about America’s choices for Supreme Leadership of our country? After eight years of Dubya, how could their opinion of our intelligence fall any further? And misogynists are quite capable of sneering at and grossly insulting the intelligence of women in general regardless of whether or not we shove corroborating evidence for their usually groundless beliefs on national TV. There, now I feel better. “Better” in the sense that I’ve convinced myself that there’s no real reason to feel “worse.” Well, not quite. There’s always that one little future terror…in the immortal words of Melissa McEwan of Shakesville: “Please, dear Cheesus, don’t let this person anywhere near Teh Button.”

I don’t need to strain myself for opinion bytes on Sarah Palin’s interview performance in the first of a series of three with ABC’s Charles Gibson; the rest of the media world has already done a thorough job for me. To wit:

LA Times:

Palin called the Russian incursion into Georgia last month “unprovoked,” a view at odds with that of U.S. officials who have reviewed events leading up to the military action.

NBC4:

Asked whether the United States would have to go to war with Russia if it invaded Georgia, and the tiny country was part of NATO, Palin said: “Perhaps so.”

WaPo:

Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would “defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.” The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself.

(Okay, that one wasn’t from the interview. Just more salt rubbed into the wound while I was torturing myself reading the media coverage.)

Slate:

In an on-location-in-Alaska interview that consumed 11 or 12 minutes of the Thursday edition of World News Tonight and continues later tonight on Nightline and again tomorrow on World News Tonight and 20/20, Palin recited her answers as if reading from a Teleprompter inside her head. The extensive coaching she has received could not save her from embarrassment in this exchange.

Gibson: Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?

Palin: In what respect, Charlie?

Gibson: What do you interpret it to be?

Palin: His worldview?

Gibson: No, the Bush Doctrine, enunciated in September 2002, before the Iraq War.

Palin attempts to fake it for 25 seconds with a swirl of generalities before Gibson, showing all the gentleness of a remedial social studies teacher, interjects.

Gibson: The Bush Doctrine as I understand it is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense. That we have the right of a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

Of course Palin agrees with the Bush Doctrine, but she can’t come out and say so, having just admitted that she doesn’t know it by name.

I haven’t decided if I’m going to inflict parts 2 and 3 on myself yet. While I’m deciding, here’s a nice video of Assembly-of-Goddites speaking in tongues.