I just am not up to putting together a critique of Obama’s pretty darn good SOTU speech, which addressed climate change, gun control, and raising the minimum wage—all things quite timely and appropriate; nor am I concerned with poor Senator Marco Rubio’s long day, which started with voting against VAWA and ended with a speech where he complained that the President (who mentioned lowering the deficit, like a million times) was trying to create bigger government and boo-hoo’d over the notion that any Democratic president might ascribe motives to the GOP based on the logical outcomes of their policies as opposed to assuming in good faith that they believed their talking points. I just want to focus on what everyone will focus on, and are already all about on the Twitter engines:the Big Sip.
It’s a thing of so much awkwardness, and the water bottle is so tiny. He moves in for it like maybe, if he moves fast enough, we won’t even notice he had a case of cottonmouth and naturally, took a drink during a speech (LIKE PEOPLE DO!). (JUST NOT SO AWKWARDLY!)
Anyone want to share their impressions? Open thread.
Bill Maher reports on The Donald’s decision to sue him for $5 million for alleging on air that Trump’s the progeny of his mother and an orangutang. (There’s a short ad at the beginning, but you can skip it after 5 seconds or so.)
Donald Trump has made it clear ... his legal war with Bill Maher isn’t just about the money ... it’s personal—telling TMZ the comic CROSSED THE LINE when he suggested Trump’s mom banged an orangutan.
Trump just appeared on “TMZ Live” and explained why he’s confident he’ll emerge victorious in his $5 million lawsuit against Maher ... claiming he doesn’t believe Bill was joking when he appeared on Leno earlier this year and challenged Trump to prove he isn’t the “spawn of his mother having sex with an orangutan.”
Donald says he vows to defend his parents’ honor—telling us, “What he said about my father is disgraceful ... and what he said about my mother, who’s deceased, was in a certain way, even more disgraceful.”
“I’ve never heard anything like that said about my parents ... who were truly great people.”
I think it’s a sad day in journamalism when the question of whether President Obama really, really, for really truly and honest-to-gosh “goes skeet-shooting all the time” at Camp David is seriously fact-checked. And yet I think it’s a hilarious day when Breitbart’s very own John Nolte questions why no one is questioning the fact checkers. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, dig? Woodward and Bernstein once brought down a president with Watergate—but today’s lapdog press is blindly accepting photographic evidence debunking Skeetgate that was made in the very same seat of the powerful that brought us such sheer propaganda as….
Today, however, the White House released a photo that purports to show Obama (love that tucked-in shirt) shooting skeet last August. Except… he’s shooting straight ahead, which means that there’s either a barn door somewhere in need of some patching, or Obama is such an awesome skeet shooter, he hits them as they come out of the firing device.
I keed, I keed. There are legitimate reasons that would explain the angle of his gun, but….
(I humbly submit that since there is smoke coming out the barrel, he has already shot and lowered the rifle, probably because it makes sense in the linear stream of things. And I’ve watched many episodes of CSI. CSI: New York and Miami, too!) And of course, the press is only doing it to make the skeet-truthers look stupid! Because…um. Right.
Can anyone remind me again why this is supposed to matter?
Via Rawstory, it looks like Bay Buchanan, former Romney campaign spox, has canned punditry for real estate:
Just two days after the election, Buchanan started an online real estate course and recently became a sales associate for McEnearney Associates Inc. in McLean, Va.
“Being somebody that they kind of know will be a real positive and, as you know, I’m just a charming person,” Buchanan insisted, adding that “compared to what I did in the past, this is an easy sell.”
“It’s so negative and TV is more difficult than ever in the sense that it’s really not an honest debate anymore,” she said of her television talking head days. “I can’t just live my life going on TV and being angry all the time.”
And, well, I’ve got no snark about that. Oh, as a pundit, she was great snarkfodder but it’s kind of nice to think that someone can look at being a tv talking head person and walk away if it actually isn’t fulfilling or useful to them (or anyone else, for that matter). And after looking over Bette’s grand recap of some of the GOP’s post-electoral shenanigans, I shouldn’t wonder if other conservative spokesfolks wouldn’t be thinking of doing something along the same lines. Just as happened shortly after the 2008 election, one expects to see some “serious” pundits (think Frum, Douthat, Brooks), plump for “Conservative smarter”, while seeing bloggerati go for “Conservative harder.” But the old tricks won’t be unlearned and there’s no point in message tweaking when it’s the ideas that aren’t hitting it with people.
What’s left isn’t “going Galt” but “going straight”. Not that I’m advising the opposition party in what to do, after all. But I do wish Bay Buchanan luck in her new field, where selling a “fixer-upper” might bear the promise of actually being a fixable commodity.
The penultimate part of my stream-of-consciousness romp through the past year on Rumproast takes us from the suspense of the eve of the first Presidential Debate to the glorious GOP recriminations and infighting of the end of November. Part 5—December—will follow tomorrow (Sunday).
Last night, on the drive to work, I heard an interview on PBS Newshour with Richard Blanco, the poet chosen to read a poem at the second inauguration of the Kenyan Usurper. While I have no animosity toward Mister (or should I say Señor?) Blanco, I’m a little miffed that I wasn’t chosen as the inaugural poet. I mean, I totally wasted about five minutes writing my inaugural poem:
A second term!
The wingnuts squirm,
And each cries for his momma.
Is still a gent
Named Barry H. Obama.
Part 3 of my roundup, after the fold, spans the “Good grief, is Mitt really relying on the Breitbartlets to win this thing for him?!” of early July to the plaintive “Are we there yet?” whimper of the end of September.
Just about every outlet runs a recap of the year at this point in the calendar, so I figured I’d join ‘em.
After the fold and in the subsequent parts you’ll find a whizz through the highlights and lowlights of the year I’ve chosen to cherrypick from the pages of Rumproast, along with some nominees for Headline of the Month. All this is obviously open to debate and I’m sure there are plenty of folks who’ll disagree with my choices in what is of necessity a very sketchy and superficial skim of 2012’s themes. If so, feel free to pipe up in the comments.
Huh. It’s Obama’s fault that Boehner can’t get the votes to do shit. So what happened on Thursday?
Well, he tried to get his guys to vote on a “Plan B” that was stuffed with things they should have liked. And they said “No.” Santa Boehner promised them a Christmas Tree, and didn’t get any cookies and milk in return. Thankless, this being Speaker of the House business. Is there any answer to his Yuletide dilemma, besides “ho,ho,ho”? his way out of it, and try to make the deal a) sweeter to his non-coalition (tick tock) and b) totally unacceptable to the House Dems, the Senate, and the White House, completely revealing who is the problem around here? (And that’s actually probably his best choice if he likes this job?)
Or should he just toss the whole thing in the fuck-it-bucket with some ice and prosecco, say “shaft the speakership”, and let Obama deal with a new congress, (which I bet Obama already has plans to do)? (That would be an excellent “Take this job and shove it” option, and ideal in the face of what looks like a “no-confidence” vote.)
The sad thing was, Boehner’s gambit actually was a bid to get some leverage by saying he could get something done—if the White House and Senate would just work with what the House agreed to. Not getting that, his road ahead looks pretty rugged. It looks even crappier if one paid attention to his very short Wednesday presser.
Huh—for some reason, the Democratic president who won re-election—this first president since Eisenhower to win both his elections by 51% or more, wants to engage this fiscal cliff debate like a Democrat.
That’s because elections have consequences. Obama didn’t run on doing some big damn thing that wasn’t a part of his party’s platform, which has always been to protect entitlements. By derisively referring to the decision to restore the tax rates for the higher 2% earners to Clinton-era levels a “small ball”, Graham is not just engaging in an unfortunate double-entendre to imply that Obama’s figurative “balls” could be bigger, but is also reminding us that those rates that the Republicans want to make their line in the sand for the upper-income folks?
Ain’t no big. It’s what rich folks were paying before the Bush tax cuts went into effect and the economy was not doing poorly, then.
What Graham’s team is playing with, though, post-fiscal cliff issue, is a “big”. Not raising the debt ceiling is akin to saying we aren’t paying the bills. The lights get shut off and the phone doesn’t work. He’s talking government shut-down.
Seriously? We’re talking Clinton-era rates on the wealthy (who aren’t going to be hand-to-mouth if they pay a higher marginal rate, what?) vs actually shutting down the government, like Gingrich an’em did. How did they do in 1998? Exactly. What was it some Spanish dude said—those who don’t remember the past….?
I can’t talk enough about how disappointing Lindsey Graham is being. Really—you want someone to pay attention to you? Resign. Quit the damn Senate, go on a reality show or something. But this irresponsible talk is conduct unbecoming a respected Senator. He has got to know better than this.
But regarding the government shutdown/denying there is a debt ceiling mandate shit—glory days. Yeah, they’ll pass you by, glory days. In the wink of a young girl’s eye, glory days—glory days, amirite? Seriously GOP—get over it. Reagan will come back no more, and the Gingrich lies ready for the Green Room and dreaming. Your time is not yet and the stars aren’t right. Please to kindly not eat the American soul because you’re feeling all nostalgic.
This clip is a little old, about two weeks. The bottom line is—just how important is this funny little “fiscal cliff” anyway? And is someone a “poopyhead”(INTERROBANG!) for thinking rich people should somehow be taxed less because they make the jobs happen? Huh. Since Norquist mentions it—there doesn’t really seem to be a particular correspondence between tax cuts and growth, and tax raises don’t really necessarily kill the economy—just going by recent history. Clinton had a higher tax rate and the the economy went to “irationally exuberant”. George Bush the Lesser lowered tax rates on the job creators and we didn’t see rapid expansion of that good old George Bush economy.
One of the problems with relying on Grover Norquist’s opinions is that he is an apparent adult baby in terms of his little pissy pledge that no one has to have the indignity of paying for the government we all benefit from. His “No Tax” pledge stems from his being a wee bairn who resented a bite from his ice cream cone. That is to say. his justification for not liking taxes now dates back to a bite by his old man of a treat (not a meal) for which he got nothing in return—whereas people who pay taxes should understand they get a lot of protections and so on from the federal government..
So it makes news when any Republican contradicts St. Grover. But that is just what a Republican, currently serving, like, say, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, up and did. No, not for the right reasons, him being a Republican and all—but still. So let it be said—Norquist is so probably an adult baby. And he lurches off to have a right snit over how people sometimes ever vote in their self-interest. The bastards. The poopyheads.
I might not mind if Norquist ever had a face to face challenge by real members of the hoi polloi, for whom taxation is very much a secondary issue. But I don’t think he’d do well in that venue. He really couldn’t run for office.
But as a mindfullness study, I do recommend that everyone recall that Grover Norquist was a human, once. An immature human. A larva. And he still says “poopyhead.”
One of the best things about the Romney campaign post mortem is reading the collective cri du cul emanating from the right-wingers. One interesting feature of their distorted view of the election is the contention that Romney, like his predecessor John McCain, was not conservative enough. Yes, even though paleolithic paleoconservative rape-apologists like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock lost their senate bids because of their knuckle-dragger comments concerning women’s rights, Mittens somehow lost because he wasn’t regressive enough.
I believe this is the true conservative ticket that can win the White House back for the GOP. Let’s meet the candidates, shall we? Here’s the totally-not-insane presidential candidate, speaking calmly and eloquently about the importance of the separation of Church and State:
Here’s the one-hundred-percent-not-sexually-confused Ted Nugent eruditely discussing the psychosexual implications of the Second Amendment:
How could the GOP fail to capture the all three branches of government with such a dream team at the top of the ticket?