Wednesday, December 26, 2012
YAFB’s 2012 Rumproast Roundup, Part 1
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.
Friday, December 21, 2012
John Boehner is A Funny Duck, Isn’t He?
This was the Speaker of Nothing on Wednesday knowing he doesn’t have the votes to get shit done:
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.
(X-Posted at Strangely Blogged.)
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Sen. Lindsey Graham Wants to Talk About Balls
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….?
This isn’t about balls, this is about responsibility. Who sounds reasonable? “No Drama Obama”—or Senator SquirrellyPants who, if he isn’t busy floating conspiracy theories about Benghazi, is now sounding as dumb as Bachmann, Gohmert, or Broun on the damn debt ceiling, even if the last time it got threatened—the credit rating of the US almost took a hit?
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.
(X-posted at Strangely Blogged).
Monday, November 26, 2012
I Think I Might Have Mentioned that Grover Norquist is an Adult Baby
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.”
Thursday, November 08, 2012
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.
One axiom of the right-wing is that Conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed. Since Romney failed, he cannot be a conservative. So, what of 2016? Ryan would be the most likely choice, because he was the second banana on the ticket… the one hitch is that he will still have the Romney stench clinging to his P90X-toned frame. Former Tea Party heartthrob Chris Christie is being drummed out of the party because he praised President Obama’s response to Superstorm Sandy. Rick Santorum is too much of a Big Government guy to be entrusted to run for the White House. Rick Perry is too soft on immigration. Let’s face it, there are very few true conservatives worthy of running in 2016, but I have the perfect ticket:
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?
Tuesday, November 06, 2012
Hemi-Semi-Demi Liveblogging the Vote With Strange & Polly And The Whole Roast Crack Election Team
Here we go either liveblogging or openly thready, somewhat off-kilter, as your hostess is a hurricane refugee hanging with Strange in PA, and your host is napping until CNN stops telling us to ignore their own exit polls (“It’s too early!”).
Thursday, November 01, 2012
The incomparable comedian and writer Steve Allen coined a useful term “dumbth” as a measurement of the willful ignorance of the (particularly) American people as a part of his book of the same name which suggested ways in which education could be improved. I humbly suggest “Trumpth” to mean the kind of willful ignorance that only the Donald Himself displays the way he does, and which is naturally personalized with his very own name, just like one of his buildings. It was his dumbth that made the Donald a birther; but it’s sheer Trumpth to think that his ignorant Twitterings could or should make President Obama render information like his school records—that no president has really ever been asked for before—public.
It’s an illness with me that I pick at things. A hangnail. A bugbite. Donald Trump’s stupidity. Indulge me. Because unless I totally explore the joke that is Trump’s awkward foray into politics, I can never really expand adequately on the joke that is Mitt Romney (Mr. Clean! snerk) and Donald Trump (bad cop?) in an alliance against President Obama. Because that—is what I’m staring at—
See, from the time that Trump endorsed Mitt to the time that it became clear that Trump was way down the rabbit hole on birtherism (contemporaneous, natch), I wondered when a more sober and circumspect Romney would distance himself from the iron grip of a genuine nutter. And then he didn’t. In fact, it looks like Mitt is pleased enough that Trump is willling to repeat the shameless lies of his advertisements:
even though they are quite clearly wrong; so long as Donald Trump will lend his CEO of a particularly (un)helpful 1980’s, art of the deal, greed is good, lifestyles of the rich and infamous cache to the campaign—in the form of everyone’s favorite form of campaign communication, the robocall, Romney is quite willing to embrace this kind of dumbth—the Trumpth, for all it’s worth.
I’m a cynical person. I do not understand this. Why does Romney want to embrace the success of tehstoopid? Is this the signal that “willfully dumb” is the new Republican smart? Is that why Unskewed Polls is so popular? And does anyone on that side suspect this is the sort of thing that even makes smart Republicans think of endorsing Obama because of odd factors like functional government and acceptance of science?
And p.s.—really? Is Donald “You’re Fired?” Trump the guy you want to represent you to the same people you’re trying to convince you aren’t the kind of guy who benefits from the auto-bailout while you are an outsourcer? So very tone-deaf and so totally Romney.
Friday, October 19, 2012
Unraveling Mittens Went Well Today: ROMNESIA!
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Live Blogging the Presidential Debate Here!! At Rumproast!! Tonight!! Tune in Y’all!!
Live coverage will begin around 8:30 ET. For those feeling a leetle skittish about Mittbot’s seeeming surge of late, let the Big Dawg explain the flawed math behind Romney’s great tax plan and soothe your nerves a little:
Drink if you must (and I’m not sure who mustn’t), grab some popcorn and a cushy seat and tune in later this evening for some Roastie comaraderie.
Standing on the Corpses of Giants Part II: Politician Takes Responsibility—Republicans Astonished
You can’t wander far online right now without encountering fistpumping jubilation among rightwingers that four diplomats were killed and three wounded in Benghazi last month—just in time for their October Surprise!
Mitt Romney, from the Mother Jones “secret video”:
... in the Jimmy Carter election, the fact that we have hostages in Iran, I mean, that was all we talked about. And we had the two helicopters crash in the desert, I mean that’s—that was—that was the focus, and so him solving that made all the difference in the world. I’m afraid today if you said, “We got Iran to agree to stand down a nuclear weapon,” they’d go hold on. It’s really a, but…by the way, if something of that nature presents itself, I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity.
YAY! Something of that nature happened! Dead Americans! Opportunity!
Form of a human—Mittbot transform!
Mitt Romney shared a remarkable story at a campaign rally in Iowa today, his voice wavering and cracking slightly as he described the tragic death of a former Navy SEAL he’d met years earlier. The young man was from Massachusetts; he died in Benghazi during the September 11 terrorist attack against the American consulate that claimed the life of US Ambassador Chris Stevens. Here is Mitt’s stirring and moving tribute:
Romney was visibly emotional during the story, and the video of the speech was repeated throughout the day on network and cable news.
But one of Glen Doherty’s best friends remembered Doherty’s impression of this meeting much differently.
Ellefsen said Doherty recalled meeting Mitt Romney years ago, but the account was much different from what the Presidential candidate retold in Iowa.
According to Ellefsen, Romney introduced himself to Doherty four separate times during the gathering.
“He said it was very comical,” Ellefsen said, “Mitt Romney approached him ultimately four times, using this private gathering as a political venture to further his image. He kept introducing himself as Mitt Romney, a political figure. The same introduction, the same opening line. Glen believed it to be very insincere and stale.”
Ellefsen said Doherty remembered Romney as robotic.
“He said it was pathetic and comical to have the same person come up to you within only a half hour, have this person reintroduce himself to you, having absolutely no idea whatsoever that he just did this 20 minutes ago, and did not even recognize Glen’s face.”
The mother of Glen Doherty, a Navy SEAL who was one of four Americans killed in the Sept. 11 attack in Libya, told a Boston TV station that GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney shouldn’t politicize her son’s death.
“I don’t trust Romney,” she said. “He shouldn’t make my son’s death part of his political agenda. It’s wrong to use these brave young men, who wanted freedom for all, to degrade Obama.”
Monday, October 15, 2012
Romney Camp: Standing on the Corpses of Giants
ThinkProgress catches Romney surrogate Rudy “A Noun and a Verb, and 9/11” Giuliani being just a tad too candid from the safe confines of Fox News.
BILL HEMMER (HOST): David Axelrod made the claim Mitt Romney is doing his best to exploit this. Is there argument to be made there? How was this handled on?
GIULIANI: He should be, he should be exploiting it. I mean, there is real chance, there is a cover-up here. They’re trying to run out the clock. Hillary Clinton appoints a commission that will investigate. They will not report until next January or February.
The appropriate course of action would naturally be to come to conclusions before bothering to conduct any investigation, following the lead of Darrell Issa.
Meanwhile, Fox Nation has apparently outsourced its content provision to Babelfish:*
In the third-from-the-bottom paragraph in the Washington Post’s article — the 17th paragraph — on its new poll out this morning, showing President Obama leading, 49 percent to 46 percent, among likely voters:
Partisan identification fluctuates from poll to poll as basic orientations shift and with the sampling variability that accompanies each randomly selected sample of voters. In the current poll, Democrats outnumber Republicans by nine percentage points among likely voters; the previous three Post-ABC polls had three-, six- and five-percentage-point edges for Democrats. The presidential contest would now be neck and neck nationally with any of these margins.
Any help on this ... Jennifer Rubin?
Jennifer Rubin @JRubinBlogger
under the Post’s poll manipulator if you go to D +3 (still very generous) Romney is up by 2 where just about every other poll is
Me neither. It seems a rather wordy translation of WAAAAH.
Talking of running out the clock, Mitt Romney is rapidly running out of quiet Fridays on which to drop his tax returns—at this stage, just one full set is obviously far more than you people deserve.
Too much crazy out there for me to cover right now. HALP!
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Behind the Irony Curtain With the Obama Haters
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”
~Jedi Philosopher and Teacher, Yoda
This is a couple of days old, but it’s been stewing in my neurons looking for a place of ventilation:
No, Ma’am, you study it out (is this a colloquial thing?) The woman in the above clip believes, much in the fashion of Alan Keyes or Victoria Jackson, that our President, Barack Obama, is in fact, a cryptocommiemuslimofascist. She can’t quite put her finger on what makes him a communist, and yet she knows. He’s also, for what it’s worth, not an American—no matter where he was born.
Which I think has always been the point. There’s a very particular definition of communist” and “American” at work here—and it’s always been beyond irony. It’s impossible to pwn, being self-pwning, solipsistic, tautological, and f’d up. The mental progression goes a little like this:
1) Anything not conservative (Republican) is communist.
3) If it’s not American, it’s crap.
4) I don’t want to be crap.
5) So I should continue hating Communists to earn valuable points.
6) Useful against cognitive dissonance, challenged authoritah, or teh ghey. Wherever American values are sold!
Now, I could be accused of over-simplifying, but I think I might be on to something, especially since I’m into the third-beer part of the evening. Here’s one for you:
Romney/Biden 2012! Or Even Just Biden 2012?
As the dust settles slowly from the VP debate, the election trundles on regardless, the polls take their own sweet time to give any clear indication of WTF is going on, and Paul Ryan fans feverishly adapt to the abject drubbing their idol took by collapsing onto the crowded fainting couches of denial, Philip Klein at The Washington Examiner twangs his readers’ last nerves by pointing out a quirk of the Constitution:
It might be hard to believe after his assault on Mitt Romney in last night’s debate, but there’s a scenario under which Joe Biden could serve as Mitt Romney’s vice president.
As noted in an earlier post, there are plausible scenarios under which next month’s election could result in a 269–269 electoral vote tie, which would send the presidential election over to the House of Representatives. Such an outcome would favor Romney over President Obama, according to an analysis by the Washington Examiner.
But in such a case, it would fall on the Senate to choose the vice president, with each Senator getting a vote. Given that it’s quite possible (arguably likely) that Democrats will retain control of the Senate, it means that they could vote for Biden to remain on as VP, even if the House elects Romney as president.
In theory, if the election outcome is a 50-50 Senate, Biden could be the tie-breaking vote for himself. This would allow him to remain on as VP and for the Democrats to retain effective control of the Senate. It would also usher in the Romney-Biden administration.
Somebody alert vanguard of the Biden underraters, the unspeakably unfunny aggro troll clown Jim Treacher, last seen emitting a butthurt squeal of a post titled “Last night, Joe Biden was a three-letter word: J-E-R-K,” having greeted news of the Ryan pick back in August with: “Fortunately, Biden wears Depends Or else there could’ve been an embarrassing scene when he heard the news.”
Clear some space around Treacher if you do, since Klein caps his musings with:
If the House ends up deadlocked in choosing a president, then the candidate the Senate chooses as vice president would be sworn in as commander in chief. In other words, this scenario could produce a President Biden.
Here’s an open thread if you want it.
Saturday, October 06, 2012
About that New Yorker Cover
The New Yorker came out with its customary October Surprise the other day, to a mixed reception. Like most art, and quite a lot of humor, it’s an ambiguous image in which folks will see a reflection of their own inner life and preconceptions.
Some on the Democratic side of the aisle have taken it as a slam at President Obama’s supposed absence during the debate, as have others on the Republican side with their usual childlike kneejerk jubilation (Col. Mustard: ” An empty Obama chair on the cover of The New Yorker smells like ... victory”; Dan Riehl: “Ouch!: The New Yorker set to mock Barry ‘The One’ Obama with next cover”).
I can accept that interpretation as one among those that are valid, but I’m not the sort of mindreader who can tell you what exactly cartoonist Barry Blitt’s intention was. Not that it matters that much, because often those who create an artwork are hostage to their own unconscious’s promptings and the subsequent interpretation the audience imposes on their work.
The image inevitably reminds me more of Clint Eastwood’s widely ridiculed scolding of an empty chair during the massive fail that was the climax of the GOP Convention.
Eastwood engaged with a caricature of Obama onto which he could project his own prejudices and spout untruths unchallenged, and assumed that the audience would go along with him as he pursued his theme. The aftermath wasn’t exactly a triumph for the Republicans. Not only did Eastwood’s overrunning bump Mitt from that vital media time slot the whole campaign had been building up to, but discussion of Eastwood’s performance vastly overshadowed the other coverage of the convention, and not in an entirely flattering way. Indeed, it doesn’t sound like Eastwood himself saw it as a particular triumph in retrospect, later saying: “If someone’s dumb enough to invite me to speak at a convention, they get what they get.”
A New Yorker cover from 2008 was also controversial and ambiguous.
Some Republicans rejoiced at this portrayal of the contender in all the gruesome glory they’d been ranting about. Those Democrats, and others, who weren’t outraged because they shared this interpretation, however, saw it as a slam at the ridiculous myths that these same Republicans, led by Sarah Palin, had been spreading. Again, I can’t read the mind of the cartoonist, but in that case I find it less easy to imagine that the intention was as the Republicans saw it. And all their trumpeting of the “Muslim!!!!” “Terrorist!!!!” fistbumping image didn’t prevent Obama’s election.
A New Yorker cover isn’t going to win or lose any election, so I’m quite happy to let the wingnuttiest of the wingnutty have their cheap chortle right now if that pleases them with just a month to go. There are other, possibly more powerful—and less ambiguous—memes out there, and the battle’s only just begun.
With apologies to Barry Blitt, and none at all to Mitt.