10/15/2010
Photos That Make the Rude Pundit Wonder if Parents Can Be Aborted:
Oh, sweet little Allan Taylor of Silver Springs, Nevada. One or both of your parents have fed you a bundle of lies as surely as they have fed you a steady diet of frozen, lard-filled chicken nuggets and high fructose corn syrup-infused Sam's Choice cola. The 8 year-old in the yellow hoodie and running pants of elastic comfort holds a sign that reads "HANDS OFF MY MONEY OBAMA" in his little hands. And the inevitable question ought to be "What the fuck's a 'Money Obama'"?
However, other than the rules of punctuation, someone ought to explain a simple thing to Allan and his teabagger Mom and/or Dad who dragged the child to a Sharron Angle rally: money that you pay in taxes ain't your fucking money. Oh, sure, it's a good line, the kind of delicious hairy sack that Angle devours constantly. The Nevada Republican candidate for Senate did it last night at her "debate" (if by "debate," you mean, "Inarticulate tortoise fight") with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Discussing the Bush tax cuts, Angle said, "First of all, let's really talk about whose money that is. It's not the federal government's money, it's our money. And when he says we're squandering the federal money, the federal government's money, it's really squandering our money."
Listen, Allan: your parents are fucking idiots who probably shouldn't have bred in the first place, but since your scuzzy dad put his diseased cock into your imbecile mom's kooz and knocked her up, you may as well learn a thing or two. Angle seems to believe that taxes are an investment in the government and that, like if you put money into stocks or gold, you can take that money out and have the money again. That's not the way it works. Taxes are actually fees the government collects so that you can have nice things like Interstate 80, just north of you, which one day you'll hop on while telling your parents to kiss your ass. Once you pay 'em, it's not your money anymore. If you don't like how it's spent or how much is collected, well, that's what elections like this are for. But no matter how low taxes are, it ain't your money. (And if your sign means that you think Barack Obama is taking cash from your future, well, you should ask your parents where your money is gonna come from if taxes don't go up.)
A couple of other quick notes on the suicidally dull Reid/Angle debate:
1. Sharron Angle called herself "a teacher for 25 years." This is not true. Her own website bio states that she was a "substitute teacher" for those 25 years. Now, you can argue about the varying quality of subs, but one thing is clear: they sure as shit ain't teachers by any stretch of the imagination (lesson plans, anyone?). Angle didn't have the credentials to become a full-time teacher. Oh, she did teach "grades K-12 in a one-room Christian school of 24 students for two years." But, while Little House on the Prairie cosplay is charming, that ain't what she said.
2. What the fuck's with the Tea Party women's fixation on men acting manly? Angle told Reid to "Man up" about Social Security. Sarah Palin attacked Barack Obama's balls. Christine O'Donnell implies her male opponents are gay. Honestly, they all sound like they're just begging for a rough fucking.
3. Along those lines, Angle was a total cunt when she attacked Reid for his wealth. Isn't Reid's life story kind of the mythical American Dream in action? A miner dad and a mom who washed john jizz from the clothes of whores so their son could go to college, become a lawyer, earn a shitload of money, and devote the remainder of his life to public service?
Hell, young Allan Taylor, you'd be one lucky son of a bitch if your parents did that for you instead of making you think the big evil guvmint is gonna take your piggy bank.
Oh, sweet little Allan Taylor of Silver Springs, Nevada. One or both of your parents have fed you a bundle of lies as surely as they have fed you a steady diet of frozen, lard-filled chicken nuggets and high fructose corn syrup-infused Sam's Choice cola. The 8 year-old in the yellow hoodie and running pants of elastic comfort holds a sign that reads "HANDS OFF MY MONEY OBAMA" in his little hands. And the inevitable question ought to be "What the fuck's a 'Money Obama'"?
However, other than the rules of punctuation, someone ought to explain a simple thing to Allan and his teabagger Mom and/or Dad who dragged the child to a Sharron Angle rally: money that you pay in taxes ain't your fucking money. Oh, sure, it's a good line, the kind of delicious hairy sack that Angle devours constantly. The Nevada Republican candidate for Senate did it last night at her "debate" (if by "debate," you mean, "Inarticulate tortoise fight") with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Discussing the Bush tax cuts, Angle said, "First of all, let's really talk about whose money that is. It's not the federal government's money, it's our money. And when he says we're squandering the federal money, the federal government's money, it's really squandering our money."
Listen, Allan: your parents are fucking idiots who probably shouldn't have bred in the first place, but since your scuzzy dad put his diseased cock into your imbecile mom's kooz and knocked her up, you may as well learn a thing or two. Angle seems to believe that taxes are an investment in the government and that, like if you put money into stocks or gold, you can take that money out and have the money again. That's not the way it works. Taxes are actually fees the government collects so that you can have nice things like Interstate 80, just north of you, which one day you'll hop on while telling your parents to kiss your ass. Once you pay 'em, it's not your money anymore. If you don't like how it's spent or how much is collected, well, that's what elections like this are for. But no matter how low taxes are, it ain't your money. (And if your sign means that you think Barack Obama is taking cash from your future, well, you should ask your parents where your money is gonna come from if taxes don't go up.)
A couple of other quick notes on the suicidally dull Reid/Angle debate:
1. Sharron Angle called herself "a teacher for 25 years." This is not true. Her own website bio states that she was a "substitute teacher" for those 25 years. Now, you can argue about the varying quality of subs, but one thing is clear: they sure as shit ain't teachers by any stretch of the imagination (lesson plans, anyone?). Angle didn't have the credentials to become a full-time teacher. Oh, she did teach "grades K-12 in a one-room Christian school of 24 students for two years." But, while Little House on the Prairie cosplay is charming, that ain't what she said.
2. What the fuck's with the Tea Party women's fixation on men acting manly? Angle told Reid to "Man up" about Social Security. Sarah Palin attacked Barack Obama's balls. Christine O'Donnell implies her male opponents are gay. Honestly, they all sound like they're just begging for a rough fucking.
3. Along those lines, Angle was a total cunt when she attacked Reid for his wealth. Isn't Reid's life story kind of the mythical American Dream in action? A miner dad and a mom who washed john jizz from the clothes of whores so their son could go to college, become a lawyer, earn a shitload of money, and devote the remainder of his life to public service?
Hell, young Allan Taylor, you'd be one lucky son of a bitch if your parents did that for you instead of making you think the big evil guvmint is gonna take your piggy bank.
10/14/2010
Candidates Say the Darnedest Things:
All quotes from this week's various debates in various races:
1. "[Y]ou writing an article saying that you learned your beliefs from an articulate, intelligent Marxist professor and that's what made you become a Democrat, that should send chills up the spine of every Delaware voter."- Christine O'Donnell, soon to lose the Senate race in Delaware, referring to Democrat Chris Coons's 1985 college newspaper column where he said that, while studying abroad in Kenya, "I studied under a bright and intelligent Marxist professor." Someone should probably inform O'Donnell that if she ever attended her college classes, she more than likely had several Marxist professors. By the way, the actual article was about how much he loves America.
2. "I don't like the idea of somebody in Washington deciding that Susie has two mommies is an appropriate family situation...That's what happens when we let things get to a federal level."- Rand Paul, debating Jack Conway at Northern Kentucky University. This was part of Paul's "logic" in eliminating the Department of Education: because obviously every student everywhere has to read about the gay penguins or mommies or Obama's gay stormtroopers sodomize their teachers in front of them.
3. "It's insulting to the millions of people who watch WWE every week ... to suggest that somehow it is less than quality entertainment." - Linda McMahon, debating Richard Blumenthal for the Senate seat of Christopher Dodd in Connecticut.
Umm...here's a description of the "quality entertainment" at the WWE NXT event occurring on the same night as the debate: "Last up is Maxine and she says that her topic tonight is disrespect. She says that last week Hornswoggle disrespected her by shoving a pie in her face, but nonetheless she was going to end up on top. Maxine turns her attention to Kaitlyn and says that Kaitlyn is actually lucky to have Vickie as her pro but she doesn’t appreciate it because she had to go and disrespect the relationship between Dolph and Vickie. Maxine calls Kaitlyn a homewrecker and says that is not how ladies conduct their business." One might argue that it's McMahon's company that insults millions of people every week.
4. "We have to hold employers accountable for hiring illegal workers." - Meg Whitman, debating Jerry Brown to be governor of California. Holding herself accountable, Whitman said in the same debate about having hired (and fired) an undocumented worker, "We went through an employment agency. We looked at three forms of identification. Our housekeeper falsified those documents and came to admit it nine years later. It broke my heart, but I had to fire her." Apparently for Whitman, "accountable" means "hopefully getting away with it." The penalty for Whitman? Well, until this came to light, not a goddamn thing.
5. And just 'cause she's so fucking dumb, which means she's so fucking funny, here's O'Donnell again, this time addressing the hypothetical situation of a sick person without insurance going for help in the emergency room of a hospital: "[R]ight now we're forcing them to. We're forcing them that they have to give care to illegal aliens. So this is something that we're already doing. What I'm proposing, you're also talking about a very small hypothetical using scare tactics to make people support this health care bill." Yep, that's right. One sentence after using the scary proposition of illegals using hospitals, she chided the moderators for using "scare tactics."
When is this absolutely endless shit over?
All quotes from this week's various debates in various races:
1. "[Y]ou writing an article saying that you learned your beliefs from an articulate, intelligent Marxist professor and that's what made you become a Democrat, that should send chills up the spine of every Delaware voter."- Christine O'Donnell, soon to lose the Senate race in Delaware, referring to Democrat Chris Coons's 1985 college newspaper column where he said that, while studying abroad in Kenya, "I studied under a bright and intelligent Marxist professor." Someone should probably inform O'Donnell that if she ever attended her college classes, she more than likely had several Marxist professors. By the way, the actual article was about how much he loves America.
2. "I don't like the idea of somebody in Washington deciding that Susie has two mommies is an appropriate family situation...That's what happens when we let things get to a federal level."- Rand Paul, debating Jack Conway at Northern Kentucky University. This was part of Paul's "logic" in eliminating the Department of Education: because obviously every student everywhere has to read about the gay penguins or mommies or Obama's gay stormtroopers sodomize their teachers in front of them.
3. "It's insulting to the millions of people who watch WWE every week ... to suggest that somehow it is less than quality entertainment." - Linda McMahon, debating Richard Blumenthal for the Senate seat of Christopher Dodd in Connecticut.
Umm...here's a description of the "quality entertainment" at the WWE NXT event occurring on the same night as the debate: "Last up is Maxine and she says that her topic tonight is disrespect. She says that last week Hornswoggle disrespected her by shoving a pie in her face, but nonetheless she was going to end up on top. Maxine turns her attention to Kaitlyn and says that Kaitlyn is actually lucky to have Vickie as her pro but she doesn’t appreciate it because she had to go and disrespect the relationship between Dolph and Vickie. Maxine calls Kaitlyn a homewrecker and says that is not how ladies conduct their business." One might argue that it's McMahon's company that insults millions of people every week.
4. "We have to hold employers accountable for hiring illegal workers." - Meg Whitman, debating Jerry Brown to be governor of California. Holding herself accountable, Whitman said in the same debate about having hired (and fired) an undocumented worker, "We went through an employment agency. We looked at three forms of identification. Our housekeeper falsified those documents and came to admit it nine years later. It broke my heart, but I had to fire her." Apparently for Whitman, "accountable" means "hopefully getting away with it." The penalty for Whitman? Well, until this came to light, not a goddamn thing.
5. And just 'cause she's so fucking dumb, which means she's so fucking funny, here's O'Donnell again, this time addressing the hypothetical situation of a sick person without insurance going for help in the emergency room of a hospital: "[R]ight now we're forcing them to. We're forcing them that they have to give care to illegal aliens. So this is something that we're already doing. What I'm proposing, you're also talking about a very small hypothetical using scare tactics to make people support this health care bill." Yep, that's right. One sentence after using the scary proposition of illegals using hospitals, she chided the moderators for using "scare tactics."
When is this absolutely endless shit over?
10/13/2010
Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Appeal:
It would be so simple, and it would be like an anxious finger shoved against the joyful prostate of the logy Democratic base. All President Barack Obama has to do is do nothing and the Federal District Court in California's injunction against the military's absurd Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy would stand. Judge Virginia Phillips declared that it wasn't just unconstitutional, but that it was, in essence, like farting in the face the Constitution, declaring that "the act known as 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' infringes the fundamental rights of United States servicemembers and prospective servicemembers and violates (a) the substantive due process rights guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and (b) the rights to freedom of speech and to petition the Government for redress of grievances guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution." Now, laugh if you will at the word "servicemembers," but the Rude Pundit's awesome math abilities calculate that you got three clauses within two Amendments violated. That seems like a pretty damn strong case.
This is a no-brainer, ain't it? You got an overwhelming majority of people out there who think the policy's bullshit. You got 21 senators, including ones from states like Louisiana and Colorado, writing to the President to let the ruling stand. You got a disheartened left that needs to get excited for the midterms and a large gay constituency who are righteously, mightily pissed at the empty promises from the administration. You want cover? Fuck, toss in the young people committing suicide over vicious, homophobic bullying. Add the gay-bashing that's erupting in places like New York fucking City. You got the perfect backdrop for standing up for the rights of people who wanna fight for the country. It ain't even controversial except among the 20% of the population who are dumb and prejudiced, skull-fucked by their pissy Jesus and left drooling imbeciles from the brain damage.
And what do you think the Obama administration will do? Will President "I Want to Repeal DADT" say, "Groovy. The Senate can go fuck itself now. Let's move on"?
Well, lookie here, hopeful knob-bobbers and clit-lickers. Given the chance to let stand the Massachusetts District Court's decision that the Defense of Marriage Act (aka "Queers are icky" Act) is unconstitutional, Obama is having his Justice Department file an appeal, saying that while the President wants to repeal DOMA, "The Justice Department is defending the statute, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged." Even though, you know, it is under no obligation to do so. It's not unakin to a New Orleans Saints fan saying that, as long as he's visiting Atlanta, he may as well root for the Falcons.
Sure, sure, the White House would say that it really, really wants Congress to take care of repealing both DOMA and DADT, but, as Andrew Sullivan says, what's the chance of that happening in the next generation as the GOP elects crazier and crazier motherfuckers? Or one could argue that, at some point, under some administration, these issues are gonna reach the Supreme Court, so why not just get it over with now? (And, frankly, that's not a terrible argument.)
Down in Florida last month, the District Court of Appeal threw out the state's draconian, three-decade old law banning gay adoption as blatantly unconstitutional. The secretary of the Department of Children and Families announced yesterday that he was not going to appeal the ruling, and that the plaintiff in the case, Frank Gill, had gone through enough just to keep the children he has raised and loved. The attorney general could still appeal, and since Bill McCollum had previously used George "Rent Boy" Rekers as an expert against gay adoption, it's up in the air, although, as the DCF said, "the depth, clarity and unanimity of the [court's] opinion -- and that of Miami-Dade Judge Cindy Lederman's original circuit court decision -- has made it evident that an appeal would have a less than limited chance of a different outcome." Governor Charlie Crist, who, you may have heard, is running for office, halted the ban after the initial decision.
See how easy that is? How easy it is to just do nothing and let the rights fall into place? How easy it is for hate to be shoved aside in favor of bringing a large segment of the population, finally, once and for all, into the American fold? Or are the potential Fox "news" outrage and a spitting Rush Limbaugh far more important than the base who got the President elected?
(By the way, the most homoerotic thing on TV right now? The image of that cock-shaped capsule in Chile plunging into and pulling out of the earth's orifice again and again. Yeah, it's a miracle, but it's a miracle that'd make an imaginative man horny.)
It would be so simple, and it would be like an anxious finger shoved against the joyful prostate of the logy Democratic base. All President Barack Obama has to do is do nothing and the Federal District Court in California's injunction against the military's absurd Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy would stand. Judge Virginia Phillips declared that it wasn't just unconstitutional, but that it was, in essence, like farting in the face the Constitution, declaring that "the act known as 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' infringes the fundamental rights of United States servicemembers and prospective servicemembers and violates (a) the substantive due process rights guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and (b) the rights to freedom of speech and to petition the Government for redress of grievances guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution." Now, laugh if you will at the word "servicemembers," but the Rude Pundit's awesome math abilities calculate that you got three clauses within two Amendments violated. That seems like a pretty damn strong case.
This is a no-brainer, ain't it? You got an overwhelming majority of people out there who think the policy's bullshit. You got 21 senators, including ones from states like Louisiana and Colorado, writing to the President to let the ruling stand. You got a disheartened left that needs to get excited for the midterms and a large gay constituency who are righteously, mightily pissed at the empty promises from the administration. You want cover? Fuck, toss in the young people committing suicide over vicious, homophobic bullying. Add the gay-bashing that's erupting in places like New York fucking City. You got the perfect backdrop for standing up for the rights of people who wanna fight for the country. It ain't even controversial except among the 20% of the population who are dumb and prejudiced, skull-fucked by their pissy Jesus and left drooling imbeciles from the brain damage.
And what do you think the Obama administration will do? Will President "I Want to Repeal DADT" say, "Groovy. The Senate can go fuck itself now. Let's move on"?
Well, lookie here, hopeful knob-bobbers and clit-lickers. Given the chance to let stand the Massachusetts District Court's decision that the Defense of Marriage Act (aka "Queers are icky" Act) is unconstitutional, Obama is having his Justice Department file an appeal, saying that while the President wants to repeal DOMA, "The Justice Department is defending the statute, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged." Even though, you know, it is under no obligation to do so. It's not unakin to a New Orleans Saints fan saying that, as long as he's visiting Atlanta, he may as well root for the Falcons.
Sure, sure, the White House would say that it really, really wants Congress to take care of repealing both DOMA and DADT, but, as Andrew Sullivan says, what's the chance of that happening in the next generation as the GOP elects crazier and crazier motherfuckers? Or one could argue that, at some point, under some administration, these issues are gonna reach the Supreme Court, so why not just get it over with now? (And, frankly, that's not a terrible argument.)
Down in Florida last month, the District Court of Appeal threw out the state's draconian, three-decade old law banning gay adoption as blatantly unconstitutional. The secretary of the Department of Children and Families announced yesterday that he was not going to appeal the ruling, and that the plaintiff in the case, Frank Gill, had gone through enough just to keep the children he has raised and loved. The attorney general could still appeal, and since Bill McCollum had previously used George "Rent Boy" Rekers as an expert against gay adoption, it's up in the air, although, as the DCF said, "the depth, clarity and unanimity of the [court's] opinion -- and that of Miami-Dade Judge Cindy Lederman's original circuit court decision -- has made it evident that an appeal would have a less than limited chance of a different outcome." Governor Charlie Crist, who, you may have heard, is running for office, halted the ban after the initial decision.
See how easy that is? How easy it is to just do nothing and let the rights fall into place? How easy it is for hate to be shoved aside in favor of bringing a large segment of the population, finally, once and for all, into the American fold? Or are the potential Fox "news" outrage and a spitting Rush Limbaugh far more important than the base who got the President elected?
(By the way, the most homoerotic thing on TV right now? The image of that cock-shaped capsule in Chile plunging into and pulling out of the earth's orifice again and again. Yeah, it's a miracle, but it's a miracle that'd make an imaginative man horny.)
10/12/2010
The Rude Pundit on Yesterday's Stephanie Miller Show:
On Monday, the Rude Pundit shared his anger with Stephanie Miller over the torture of three gay men by the totally not-gay members of a Bronx gang, and he wondered aloud, "When straight guys are beaten down, why aren't they sodomized?" Also, Carl Paladino sucks dog dicks. No, really.
You can get your weekly oral rudeness with no effort once you subscribe to the Rude Pundit's podcast. It's easy and free.
On Monday, the Rude Pundit shared his anger with Stephanie Miller over the torture of three gay men by the totally not-gay members of a Bronx gang, and he wondered aloud, "When straight guys are beaten down, why aren't they sodomized?" Also, Carl Paladino sucks dog dicks. No, really.
You can get your weekly oral rudeness with no effort once you subscribe to the Rude Pundit's podcast. It's easy and free.
For GOP Candidates, Having a Past Means Never Having to Say:
By the standards of the current crop of Republican candidates, Ted Bundy, if still alive, could run for office. Sure, sure, Bundy murdered dozens of young women and was one of the most notorious serial killers in American history, but he was a loyal Republican, even engaging in dirty tricks to help the re-election campaign of Washington Governor Daniel Evans in 1972. And if Bundy was running now and some pesky reporter asked him, say, "Howzabout all that raping and bludgeoning?" he could call it a "personal attack" and add, "We've drawn a line in the sand. You can ask me about background, you can ask me about personal issues. I'm not going to answer."
Which is exactly what Alaska Republican Joe Miller, the teabagger running for Senate, told the press yesterday. No, Miller hasn't been revealed as a serial killer (yet - but that skeevy beard reeks of backwoods burials), but the fiscal conservative who is anti-poverty programs owes about $100,000 in credit card debt and he and his family received low-income health care assistance. In other words, his actual life runs counter to his beliefs.
But his past is off-limits. Unless, of course, his past has some good shit in it. So, according to his website's bio, "Miller served as an officer in the United States Army. He was awarded the Bronze Star for his leadership in combat during the First Gulf War." That's within the realm of polite discussion and is an obvious qualification for public office, by Miller's standards. However, if he's a welfare user who can't keep his finances straight despite, as his bio states, having a Master's in economics? That is an "attack that is based upon avoiding the issues, where we're at as a state, where we're at as a nation and looking at other things that basically distract people's attention."
This whole idea that the actions of one's past have no bearing on the qualifications of a candidate is laughable for how it is conveniently deployed when something inconvenient comes up. George W. Bush ran several companies into the ground. He was a fucking failure who had a special name. But that was a no-go for discussion in 2000 and 2004. John McCain's ability to survive at the Hanoi Hilton was totally cool to bring up, though.
This year, though, it's particularly pronounced because so many of the Tea Party-supported or Palin-anointed candidates are either devoid of anything that might be considered qualifications for office, like Christine O'Donnell, or are simply incompetent, like Miller (although the Rude Pundit's sure he's got some literal and figurative dead hobos plastered in the walls of his house). Indeed, if you shitcan everything that O'Donnell has said in her wild and wacky past as a conservative bombthrower, she's done absolutely nothing with her life except accumulate a bunch of debt. Yet she's a major party's nominee to become a senator, which means, if elected, she could pull a DeMint and shut down the running of Congress. Seriously, the Rude Pundit thinks the main reason O'Donnell and Miller are even in the game is that senators pull down a pretty sweet salary and benefits.
Senate candidate Linda McMahon dismisses the fact that the corporation she ran, World Wrestling Entertainment, actively promoted violence against and the degradation of women. She's focused on the future for the voters of Connecticut. That part of her job doesn't matter, but, boy, didn't she make a lot of money and isn't making money awesome?
The sad part is that voters will probably see Miller's life story as emblematic of their own in Alaska (even if they don't have a Yale JD). The sadder part is that, for most Republicans, this shit just get's picked up off the lawn and tossed away. David Vitter balls hookers? Whatever. Newt Gingrich is a sleazy twatmonger? Run that motherfucker for President.
Of course, Democrats are held to a different standard. Their pasts are unforgivable. Rand Paul, a man who is lick-his-own-taint insane, derided Bill Clinton's support of his opponent. "I'm not sure I would trust a guy who had had sexual relations with an intern," said the man who looks perpetually like he just masturbated on a cat. (And if he's got that as a standard, Paul's gonna have a really hard time trusting anyone in DC.)
Shit, Barack Obama's past is a constant debate in GOP circles. And the one they've concocted isn't even his real one. But that's par for the course: if a politician's life is too honorable, you gotta just make shit up. Ask John Kerry.
By the standards of the current crop of Republican candidates, Ted Bundy, if still alive, could run for office. Sure, sure, Bundy murdered dozens of young women and was one of the most notorious serial killers in American history, but he was a loyal Republican, even engaging in dirty tricks to help the re-election campaign of Washington Governor Daniel Evans in 1972. And if Bundy was running now and some pesky reporter asked him, say, "Howzabout all that raping and bludgeoning?" he could call it a "personal attack" and add, "We've drawn a line in the sand. You can ask me about background, you can ask me about personal issues. I'm not going to answer."
Which is exactly what Alaska Republican Joe Miller, the teabagger running for Senate, told the press yesterday. No, Miller hasn't been revealed as a serial killer (yet - but that skeevy beard reeks of backwoods burials), but the fiscal conservative who is anti-poverty programs owes about $100,000 in credit card debt and he and his family received low-income health care assistance. In other words, his actual life runs counter to his beliefs.
But his past is off-limits. Unless, of course, his past has some good shit in it. So, according to his website's bio, "Miller served as an officer in the United States Army. He was awarded the Bronze Star for his leadership in combat during the First Gulf War." That's within the realm of polite discussion and is an obvious qualification for public office, by Miller's standards. However, if he's a welfare user who can't keep his finances straight despite, as his bio states, having a Master's in economics? That is an "attack that is based upon avoiding the issues, where we're at as a state, where we're at as a nation and looking at other things that basically distract people's attention."
This whole idea that the actions of one's past have no bearing on the qualifications of a candidate is laughable for how it is conveniently deployed when something inconvenient comes up. George W. Bush ran several companies into the ground. He was a fucking failure who had a special name. But that was a no-go for discussion in 2000 and 2004. John McCain's ability to survive at the Hanoi Hilton was totally cool to bring up, though.
This year, though, it's particularly pronounced because so many of the Tea Party-supported or Palin-anointed candidates are either devoid of anything that might be considered qualifications for office, like Christine O'Donnell, or are simply incompetent, like Miller (although the Rude Pundit's sure he's got some literal and figurative dead hobos plastered in the walls of his house). Indeed, if you shitcan everything that O'Donnell has said in her wild and wacky past as a conservative bombthrower, she's done absolutely nothing with her life except accumulate a bunch of debt. Yet she's a major party's nominee to become a senator, which means, if elected, she could pull a DeMint and shut down the running of Congress. Seriously, the Rude Pundit thinks the main reason O'Donnell and Miller are even in the game is that senators pull down a pretty sweet salary and benefits.
Senate candidate Linda McMahon dismisses the fact that the corporation she ran, World Wrestling Entertainment, actively promoted violence against and the degradation of women. She's focused on the future for the voters of Connecticut. That part of her job doesn't matter, but, boy, didn't she make a lot of money and isn't making money awesome?
The sad part is that voters will probably see Miller's life story as emblematic of their own in Alaska (even if they don't have a Yale JD). The sadder part is that, for most Republicans, this shit just get's picked up off the lawn and tossed away. David Vitter balls hookers? Whatever. Newt Gingrich is a sleazy twatmonger? Run that motherfucker for President.
Of course, Democrats are held to a different standard. Their pasts are unforgivable. Rand Paul, a man who is lick-his-own-taint insane, derided Bill Clinton's support of his opponent. "I'm not sure I would trust a guy who had had sexual relations with an intern," said the man who looks perpetually like he just masturbated on a cat. (And if he's got that as a standard, Paul's gonna have a really hard time trusting anyone in DC.)
Shit, Barack Obama's past is a constant debate in GOP circles. And the one they've concocted isn't even his real one. But that's par for the course: if a politician's life is too honorable, you gotta just make shit up. Ask John Kerry.
10/11/2010
It's Columbus Day and We're Still Screwing Over the Natives:
Among the over 400 bills being held up by the renegade Republicans in the Senate is a simple matter: the approval of a negotiated settlement of a class action lawsuit filed in 1996 by a group of American Indians charging that the Department of the Interior had, for over a hundred years, dicked over Indians for their share of leases to natural resource usage on Indian land. The Cobell v. Salazar settlement (named for the first plaintiff, Elouise Cobell, and the current Interior Secretary) is for $3.4 billion dollars, far, far less than what is actually owed, a bargain, really. The case was settled in December 2009. All that was needed was congressional approval by the original deadline of April 16.
Twice, it was possible for the matter to be taken care of. Twice it failed due to Republican obstructionist tactics. It passed the House in May after the deadline was extended. It passed again in July as part of another spending bill. The deadline for Congress now looms on October 15, this coming Friday, while it has floundered in our dysfunctional Senate.
Initially, Senator John Bareasshole...er, Barrasso of Wyoming had a problem with the lawyers' fees, which amounted to about 3% of the settlement for 13+ years of work. But that was settled, and, indeed, it seemed that Republicans were going to stop being fuckbags about it (and about another settlement in the matter of the government dicking over black farmers, which has been linked to the Cobell case because, see, one minority is the same as another). In late September, when Harry Reid was going to ask for unanimous consent on Cobell, Oklahoma's Tom Coburn said he would object, as he did in May. His reasons? "He wants the settlement costs to be offset so they don't add to the deficit and to ensure that the remedies go to the people who were wronged."
Think about that for a moment. He doesn't want to add to the deficit even though the money that is owed to the Indians was, in essence, stolen from them and already spent. As far as it going to the right individuals, well, that was all negotiated and litigated for the last, you know, 13 fucking years. By the way, of the 300,000 people who will get something from the Cobell settlement, 50,000 are in Oklahoma.
So, as stupid marches for a stupid man go on today, remember that in ways large and small, the ongoing degradation of indigenous peoples that the stupid man unleashed continues, with his stupid mantle being carried by others who wallow with pride in their own stupidity.
Among the over 400 bills being held up by the renegade Republicans in the Senate is a simple matter: the approval of a negotiated settlement of a class action lawsuit filed in 1996 by a group of American Indians charging that the Department of the Interior had, for over a hundred years, dicked over Indians for their share of leases to natural resource usage on Indian land. The Cobell v. Salazar settlement (named for the first plaintiff, Elouise Cobell, and the current Interior Secretary) is for $3.4 billion dollars, far, far less than what is actually owed, a bargain, really. The case was settled in December 2009. All that was needed was congressional approval by the original deadline of April 16.
Twice, it was possible for the matter to be taken care of. Twice it failed due to Republican obstructionist tactics. It passed the House in May after the deadline was extended. It passed again in July as part of another spending bill. The deadline for Congress now looms on October 15, this coming Friday, while it has floundered in our dysfunctional Senate.
Initially, Senator John Bareasshole...er, Barrasso of Wyoming had a problem with the lawyers' fees, which amounted to about 3% of the settlement for 13+ years of work. But that was settled, and, indeed, it seemed that Republicans were going to stop being fuckbags about it (and about another settlement in the matter of the government dicking over black farmers, which has been linked to the Cobell case because, see, one minority is the same as another). In late September, when Harry Reid was going to ask for unanimous consent on Cobell, Oklahoma's Tom Coburn said he would object, as he did in May. His reasons? "He wants the settlement costs to be offset so they don't add to the deficit and to ensure that the remedies go to the people who were wronged."
Think about that for a moment. He doesn't want to add to the deficit even though the money that is owed to the Indians was, in essence, stolen from them and already spent. As far as it going to the right individuals, well, that was all negotiated and litigated for the last, you know, 13 fucking years. By the way, of the 300,000 people who will get something from the Cobell settlement, 50,000 are in Oklahoma.
So, as stupid marches for a stupid man go on today, remember that in ways large and small, the ongoing degradation of indigenous peoples that the stupid man unleashed continues, with his stupid mantle being carried by others who wallow with pride in their own stupidity.
10/08/2010
Chris Christie: "Jobs and Infrastructure Are Not What New Jersey's About":
No need to adjust your monitors to widescreen. That fat bag of snacks, that tub of elephant shit up there is, in fact, the governor of New Jersey, Christopher J. Christie. The "J" stands for "jelly." The Republican was elected in 2009, and, oh, the benefits the state has reaped. So far, Christie is responsible for the loss of $400 million in education funding, and now, with his killing of the already-underway construction of a new railway tunnel that would go from Secaucus to near Penn Station, he's tossed back $3 billion in grant funds to DC, as well as put the state on the hook for the $300 million the federal government already spent. This is not to mention the jobs lost, the economic development squashed, the positive environmental impact for polluted Northeast Jersey blown away.
Christie says he's making a brave stand for fiscal responsibility, that the project might well run several billion dollars higher than originally budgeted. "I have made a pledge to the people of New Jersey that on my watch I will not allow taxpayers to fund projects that run over budget with no clear way of how these costs will be paid for," said the governor. How brave. How...oh, wait..
From the Newark Star-Ledger, December 11, 2009: "Gov.-elect Chris Christie yesterday defended his decision to support borrowing more than $1 billion to pay for highway and mass transit improvements, saying it would be 'irresponsible' to cut off funding for projects that have already started."
Now, why would a morbidly obese man undulate his girth away from a pork-filled buffet? Because he wants filet mignon, a big heaping helping of it. With blue cheese sauce.
Christie ain't gonna, no-how raise the gas tax. He's a modern Republican and that means ideology trumps all. Also, he needs money for the empty coffers of the state's highway fund. The Star-Ledger pointed out, on November 26, 2009, "Gov.-elect Chris Christie has vowed not to raise New Jersey's 14.5-cent-per-gallon tax to replenish the state's diminishing funding resources for road and rail projects. Both state and federal taxes -- which combined add 32.9 cents to the per-gallon price -- haven't been raised in about two decades." To be fair, the man-shaped goo-bag did campaign on the issue. But he also claimed he supported the tunnel, so, you know, things change, eh?
And why is this gluttonous ogre, who would make Diamond Jim Brady say, "C'mon, motherfucker, eat a salad," so very, very opposed to even a small increase in the gas tax in order to fund, you know, the things the cars drive on? Well, let's let some of New Jersey's editorial writers tell you why:
"He knows that raising the gas tax would spoil the political image he has built for himself, all the way to Iowa. He’s a rock star on the national conservative circuit now, and that’s hard to give up," says the Star-Ledger's editorial board.
Or, as Atlantic City Press's Jim Perskie writes, "[I]t’s fair to ask if killing the tunnel project is yet another indication that Christie is now more interested in burnishing his national image as a tough, cost-cutting Republican presidential candidate than in governing New Jersey...when you are out in Iowa telling the faithful about all you’ve done in New Jersey, nobody in the audience checks to see if you’ve actually done it or just proposed it."
They look soft, but hippos are the most easily enraged and dangerous beasts in the jungle.
(By the way, the Rude Pundit has driven on River Road in Edgewater, New Jersey, and seen the destruction of a perfectly lovely rocky cliffside in order to build the tunnel. What a goddamn waste.)
Correction: An earlier version of this said Christie was elected in 2008. He was not. He was elected in 2009, which means he's worked really quickly to be so awful.
No need to adjust your monitors to widescreen. That fat bag of snacks, that tub of elephant shit up there is, in fact, the governor of New Jersey, Christopher J. Christie. The "J" stands for "jelly." The Republican was elected in 2009, and, oh, the benefits the state has reaped. So far, Christie is responsible for the loss of $400 million in education funding, and now, with his killing of the already-underway construction of a new railway tunnel that would go from Secaucus to near Penn Station, he's tossed back $3 billion in grant funds to DC, as well as put the state on the hook for the $300 million the federal government already spent. This is not to mention the jobs lost, the economic development squashed, the positive environmental impact for polluted Northeast Jersey blown away.
Christie says he's making a brave stand for fiscal responsibility, that the project might well run several billion dollars higher than originally budgeted. "I have made a pledge to the people of New Jersey that on my watch I will not allow taxpayers to fund projects that run over budget with no clear way of how these costs will be paid for," said the governor. How brave. How...oh, wait..
From the Newark Star-Ledger, December 11, 2009: "Gov.-elect Chris Christie yesterday defended his decision to support borrowing more than $1 billion to pay for highway and mass transit improvements, saying it would be 'irresponsible' to cut off funding for projects that have already started."
Now, why would a morbidly obese man undulate his girth away from a pork-filled buffet? Because he wants filet mignon, a big heaping helping of it. With blue cheese sauce.
Christie ain't gonna, no-how raise the gas tax. He's a modern Republican and that means ideology trumps all. Also, he needs money for the empty coffers of the state's highway fund. The Star-Ledger pointed out, on November 26, 2009, "Gov.-elect Chris Christie has vowed not to raise New Jersey's 14.5-cent-per-gallon tax to replenish the state's diminishing funding resources for road and rail projects. Both state and federal taxes -- which combined add 32.9 cents to the per-gallon price -- haven't been raised in about two decades." To be fair, the man-shaped goo-bag did campaign on the issue. But he also claimed he supported the tunnel, so, you know, things change, eh?
And why is this gluttonous ogre, who would make Diamond Jim Brady say, "C'mon, motherfucker, eat a salad," so very, very opposed to even a small increase in the gas tax in order to fund, you know, the things the cars drive on? Well, let's let some of New Jersey's editorial writers tell you why:
"He knows that raising the gas tax would spoil the political image he has built for himself, all the way to Iowa. He’s a rock star on the national conservative circuit now, and that’s hard to give up," says the Star-Ledger's editorial board.
Or, as Atlantic City Press's Jim Perskie writes, "[I]t’s fair to ask if killing the tunnel project is yet another indication that Christie is now more interested in burnishing his national image as a tough, cost-cutting Republican presidential candidate than in governing New Jersey...when you are out in Iowa telling the faithful about all you’ve done in New Jersey, nobody in the audience checks to see if you’ve actually done it or just proposed it."
They look soft, but hippos are the most easily enraged and dangerous beasts in the jungle.
(By the way, the Rude Pundit has driven on River Road in Edgewater, New Jersey, and seen the destruction of a perfectly lovely rocky cliffside in order to build the tunnel. What a goddamn waste.)
Correction: An earlier version of this said Christie was elected in 2008. He was not. He was elected in 2009, which means he's worked really quickly to be so awful.
10/07/2010
The Destructive Con Job of the Modern GOP:
For the last few decades, at least, the modus operandi of the Republican Party has been to seek every advantage in order to use power to its fullest, most extreme extent. Yeah, sure, both parties exist as a way to consolidate power, but the Democrats have, since at least FDR, had tempering elements within its ranks (we on the left call them "assholes" or "Lieber-men"). However, the Republican approach to power has been to rape and pillage, to slash and burn, to kill 'em all and let God sort it out. From the impeachment of Bill Clinton to the Iraq war to the expansion of presidential authoritah, for the GOP, power exists to be used. No, not "used." How about "wielded like a medieval cudgel"?
To take it further, Republicans are a troop of sweaty, paranoid psychopaths handed loaded AK-47s and told to wait to fire until they see the whites of the enemies' eyes. What's that psychopath gonna do? Be patient? Hell, no. He's gonna wildly shoot up shit, not giving a happy monkey fuck what gets blown away in the process - the enemy, the farm animals, his own fellow troops. What's it matter when he's got a machine gun and he wants to fire and feel the pulse and heat of power in his hands?
Right now, while running a long con on the American people (more on that in a sec), congressional Republicans have completely upended the actual running of the government through their extraordinary abuse of the rules of the Senate. For instance, there's 420 bills passed by the House that are now awaiting passage in the Senate. It's like the Senate has become the plaque build-up in the arteries of democracy, the constipated colon of America. In their crazed embargo on progress, the GOP Senators have behaved like a douchebag junior executive who's told he can use a company car for personal reasons and then takes one for a joyride across the country with his douchebag friends. Yeah, it was within the rules, but when accounting sees this, it's probably gonna fuck up the privilege for everyone who wasn't a jerk-off about it. But, hey, d-bag won't get his rocks off again, either. He fucked himself.
So now Republicans, who have made the filibuster, once a measure of last resort, into the way the Senate runs, are saying that they won't be able to pass things if they have the majority because they need 60 votes. As John Aravosis points out, um, no, you only need 50 votes to pass a bill. But because they themselves fucked the process like a horny farm boy with a dying donkey, they're expecting a fucking in return. Oh, noble Republicans, fear not. Because you'd be dealing with Democrats, and we crumble and shit ourselves at a whispered "boo." (What? "Buck up"? Why don't you go buck yourself.)
If the Republicans take back the House and (in a Democratic doomsday scenario) the Senate, history will show that it was because of one of the great con jobs ever played in politics. For what is the current political zeitgeist but the result of one long game of three-card monte played for the rubes who actually think they'll know where the queen is? The con is this: Republicans and their media allies have convinced too many voters that Democrats have either accomplished nothing or have only accomplished things that will hurt them. They have done so despite the facts that: 1. a great deal has been accomplished; 2. what hasn't been accomplished is due almost entirely to Republican obstructionism; and 3. what's been passed has been watered down in order to appease Republicans and some of the asshole Democrats. The greatest part of it? That the GOP's refusal to govern is them standing up for "American" values, which, if you think about it, is about right.
In other words, Republicans use extremist tactics and extremist rhetoric (for, truly, there's not a single thing passed in this Congress that even approaches "socialism"), and, if those fail, they lie outright. And in doing so, they make their mostly reasonable, way-too acquiescent opponents seem like despicable fuckbags who want America to become part Mexico/part Sharialand. That's an awesome con job: shutdown the functioning of part of the government through procedural chicanery that most people won't give a damn about (A hold? What the fuck is that? We don't have time for civics classes anymore) and blame the majority, which is easy to understand: "Oh, Democrats in power. Democrats must naturally suck."
The frustrating part is that, even if polls now show some tightening in races, it's worked. The con job has been successful. The ultimate plan of the GOP is to make governing in DC so impossible, so untenable, that it ceases to function except on the limited terms of a savage conservatism. And we're making it possible. The whiplash-inducing fickleness of the American electorate is part and parcel of a people who are deluded with their sense of individual self-worth and entitlement. Those who bitch about President Obama's lack of bipartisanship are idiots. Obama gave the Republicans a Marshall Plan of political cover after their devastation in 2008. And, like Germany before it, they used it to grow powerful again.
Now, we get Republicans who are pretending to behave honorably. Olympia Snowe said yesterday, "Frankly we haven't done our jobs well here in Washington and that disturbs me. There's all this partisanship and polarization, and ultimately it yields two outcomes: either scorched-earth victory for one side or political stagnation." No shit. And who was it that negotiated in bad faith over the health care bill? Oh, yeah. Olympia Snowe.
You can't unfuck something that you've fucked. Republicans have paid almost no long-term price for the Caligula-like madness of the Bush administration. There's a chance that, now, two-years later, they're gonna get rewarded for refusing to participate in running the country. It's like setting free an arsonist after you've started to rebuild the house and telling him, "Oh, and here's those matches we took from you. Sorry for the inconvenience."
For the last few decades, at least, the modus operandi of the Republican Party has been to seek every advantage in order to use power to its fullest, most extreme extent. Yeah, sure, both parties exist as a way to consolidate power, but the Democrats have, since at least FDR, had tempering elements within its ranks (we on the left call them "assholes" or "Lieber-men"). However, the Republican approach to power has been to rape and pillage, to slash and burn, to kill 'em all and let God sort it out. From the impeachment of Bill Clinton to the Iraq war to the expansion of presidential authoritah, for the GOP, power exists to be used. No, not "used." How about "wielded like a medieval cudgel"?
To take it further, Republicans are a troop of sweaty, paranoid psychopaths handed loaded AK-47s and told to wait to fire until they see the whites of the enemies' eyes. What's that psychopath gonna do? Be patient? Hell, no. He's gonna wildly shoot up shit, not giving a happy monkey fuck what gets blown away in the process - the enemy, the farm animals, his own fellow troops. What's it matter when he's got a machine gun and he wants to fire and feel the pulse and heat of power in his hands?
Right now, while running a long con on the American people (more on that in a sec), congressional Republicans have completely upended the actual running of the government through their extraordinary abuse of the rules of the Senate. For instance, there's 420 bills passed by the House that are now awaiting passage in the Senate. It's like the Senate has become the plaque build-up in the arteries of democracy, the constipated colon of America. In their crazed embargo on progress, the GOP Senators have behaved like a douchebag junior executive who's told he can use a company car for personal reasons and then takes one for a joyride across the country with his douchebag friends. Yeah, it was within the rules, but when accounting sees this, it's probably gonna fuck up the privilege for everyone who wasn't a jerk-off about it. But, hey, d-bag won't get his rocks off again, either. He fucked himself.
So now Republicans, who have made the filibuster, once a measure of last resort, into the way the Senate runs, are saying that they won't be able to pass things if they have the majority because they need 60 votes. As John Aravosis points out, um, no, you only need 50 votes to pass a bill. But because they themselves fucked the process like a horny farm boy with a dying donkey, they're expecting a fucking in return. Oh, noble Republicans, fear not. Because you'd be dealing with Democrats, and we crumble and shit ourselves at a whispered "boo." (What? "Buck up"? Why don't you go buck yourself.)
If the Republicans take back the House and (in a Democratic doomsday scenario) the Senate, history will show that it was because of one of the great con jobs ever played in politics. For what is the current political zeitgeist but the result of one long game of three-card monte played for the rubes who actually think they'll know where the queen is? The con is this: Republicans and their media allies have convinced too many voters that Democrats have either accomplished nothing or have only accomplished things that will hurt them. They have done so despite the facts that: 1. a great deal has been accomplished; 2. what hasn't been accomplished is due almost entirely to Republican obstructionism; and 3. what's been passed has been watered down in order to appease Republicans and some of the asshole Democrats. The greatest part of it? That the GOP's refusal to govern is them standing up for "American" values, which, if you think about it, is about right.
In other words, Republicans use extremist tactics and extremist rhetoric (for, truly, there's not a single thing passed in this Congress that even approaches "socialism"), and, if those fail, they lie outright. And in doing so, they make their mostly reasonable, way-too acquiescent opponents seem like despicable fuckbags who want America to become part Mexico/part Sharialand. That's an awesome con job: shutdown the functioning of part of the government through procedural chicanery that most people won't give a damn about (A hold? What the fuck is that? We don't have time for civics classes anymore) and blame the majority, which is easy to understand: "Oh, Democrats in power. Democrats must naturally suck."
The frustrating part is that, even if polls now show some tightening in races, it's worked. The con job has been successful. The ultimate plan of the GOP is to make governing in DC so impossible, so untenable, that it ceases to function except on the limited terms of a savage conservatism. And we're making it possible. The whiplash-inducing fickleness of the American electorate is part and parcel of a people who are deluded with their sense of individual self-worth and entitlement. Those who bitch about President Obama's lack of bipartisanship are idiots. Obama gave the Republicans a Marshall Plan of political cover after their devastation in 2008. And, like Germany before it, they used it to grow powerful again.
Now, we get Republicans who are pretending to behave honorably. Olympia Snowe said yesterday, "Frankly we haven't done our jobs well here in Washington and that disturbs me. There's all this partisanship and polarization, and ultimately it yields two outcomes: either scorched-earth victory for one side or political stagnation." No shit. And who was it that negotiated in bad faith over the health care bill? Oh, yeah. Olympia Snowe.
You can't unfuck something that you've fucked. Republicans have paid almost no long-term price for the Caligula-like madness of the Bush administration. There's a chance that, now, two-years later, they're gonna get rewarded for refusing to participate in running the country. It's like setting free an arsonist after you've started to rebuild the house and telling him, "Oh, and here's those matches we took from you. Sorry for the inconvenience."
Coming soon: Yeah? So what are you gonna do about it?
