Category Archives: Politics Not as Usual

Misanthropic GOP Hell-Bent on Losing in 2012

Posted on by
Reply

The current Republican-primary circus should remind Americans just how utterly misanthropic the Grand Old Party is. Whereas most presidential primaries usually had two clear frontrunners—e.g., Obama and Clinton in 2008, Edwards and Kerry in 2004, Bush and McCain in 2000—in the current GOP primary, the lead has changed more often than Herman Cain’s views on women.

To recap, Romney was considered the heir apparent in early 2011, not because he’s been a loyal Republican but because he basically came in second in 2008 to John McCain (“next up to bat”). And Romney is slick, smooth—a Ken doll with a load of cash. Then, all of a sudden, as if the entire GOP voting electorate was hibernating for the past dozen years, his support among crazy conservatives began plummeting. “RomneyCare” started to fly around, and then, in the summer, Michele Bachman won a completely inconsequential straw poll (which might as well be called a “bullshit poll”) in her home state of Iowa (a place where she erroneously claimed John Wayne was born, though her crack campaign team apparently didn’t realize there was a “Gacy” at the end of that Wikipedia search). Nonetheless, people instantly began questioning the hard-right bona fides of Mitt Romney. Did they forget he was the governor of über-liberal Massachusetts? Did they forget he crafted a health-care bill that was the blueprint for the much-maligned (among the idiot right) Obama health-care overhaul? Oh, wait…no, they didn’t forget. They didn’t know: Most of the GOP electorate shun the news media and knowledge in general. People who are smart are labeled “elites,” and to the GOP throng they’re no better than Moos-lem extremists.

So for a while at least, Bachmann basked in the spotlight. But she’s clearly obtuse and one with an intellect so dull that one might think she has some sort of learning disability—she’s borderline special-needs. Thus, just as quickly as she rose, she fell; who stole her thunder? Yet another spectacularly dim bulb: Texas governor Rick Perry. When he jumped into the race, it was almost like a battle among the candidates to see who was the dumbest. Perry did his damnedest to win that crown. Even before he made his notorious “one…two…and, the third…uh…” gaffe, he had been making insipid and false statements that would only appeal to the most lurdane American (e.g., “The first round of stimulus … created zero jobs” and “Social Security is indeed a Ponzi scheme).

But apparently, his debate gaffe was a bridge too far for the GOP electorate. Hey wait a minute, they said, he forgot the third governmental agency he was going to shit-can? That’s weird. Thus, the Perry tumble began.

But wait…have no fear, the Cain Train was arriving in the station. Though Herman Cain had been in the race for some time, he never caught fire until Perry gaffed his way into oblivion. But what sparked Cain’s rise? Fox News of course. Around the time Perry was beginning to flame out, the reliable right-wing nutjobs of Fox News were celebrating Cain’s preposterous 9-9-9 tax plan. Cain was like a stand-up comic looking for a gimmick, and he found one the right-wing establishment could talk about.

Thus, out of nowhere (seemingly), Cain rocketed in the polls. Why? Because he was eloquent? Sure, just ask the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel editorial board. No, he was given serious consideration because, quite simply, he hated himself. He was a self-loathing, misanthropic little man with an IQ even lower than that of Bachmann or Perry. The GOP electorate loves candidates who hate themselves, so they gleefully jumped aboard the Cain Train.

But of course, all intense crushes come to a bitter end. And I need’t rehash what brought Cain down. Ironically (or not), he was still flying high in the polls even after a half-dozen women came forward to accuse him of being a creepy sexual predator. Why weren’t his poll numbers cratering? Because the GOP voters love psychotic candidates who are off the rails. What were these supporters saying when Cain was accused of the numerous harassment claims? Rather than, “No, he couldn’t have done that,” there were likely saying things like “Cain harassed women? Fuck those bitches, they were probably liberals and deserved it.” That’s the typical GOP voter. (Look at Rush Limbaugh, the de facto head of the Republican Party—his misogyny is legendary.)

The Republicans will say, “Hey wait a second, Liberal Fuck, how can you say those things?” Here’s how. Remember what transpired during the copious GOP debates this year: Audiences cheered at such things as a man dying because he didn’t have health insurance; the jobless should blame themselves for being unemployed; and the record number of people put to death in Texas. When people cheer this kind of stuff, it’s very telling. It’s not the sign of normal, stable people. It proves the GOP, as a group, are a misanthropic set of extremists: an American Taliban, complete with their own “news” network supporting their every move.

So once marketing-whore Cain flamed out (and his candidacy was rightly labeled a “book tour” by the American Prospect), who was left to fill that void? Rick Santorum? Nope. Even the hard-right hate that guy: a completely unlikable, bitter, repulsive douchebag with little to offer anyone. The only one standing with right-wing cred was…hard to even write his name…Newt Gingrich, proving everything that’s old is new again.

Much has been of Gingrich’s crass, selfish, disgusting personal moral code (or lack thereof), but the media still gush over his alleged “intellect.” I guess that’s like saying [insert nasty despot here]‘s intelligent. One of the big lies spread by the “liberal” media is that Newt’s smart. Hey, he’s a former college history “professor” they say. At Yale? Harvard? Uh, no, West Georgia College. Being a professor doesn’t mean you’re smart.

So the GOP primary boils down to Romney v. Newt? Really? As a liberal, I very much hope Newt wins it (he’s already said he’s going to be the nominee), but the GOP electorate will have to ask themselves: Do we lose and hate ourselves and want to die (Newt)? Or do we lose and at least retake the party from the clutches of the tea party (Mitt). Either way, the Republicans will lose in 2012, because as much as the GOP wants the election to be about Obama, it’s going to be more about the sorry state of the Republican Party, a party that has been hijacked by the tea party and like-minded extremists. And with the economy in full (albeit slow) recovery, it’s looking to be the perfect storm for an Obama reelection.

I’ll leave you with an excellent Ali G. interview with Newt Gingrich several years back.


Ali G- Newt Gingrich by kamloue

Chris Christie Secretly Hoping Obama Wins Reelection?

Posted on by
Reply

No political figure in recent history has toyed and manipulated the media for strictly personal gain better than New Jersey governor Chris Christie. By simply not declaring his candidacy, he’s been able to attract the kind of media tsunami only dreamed of by actual candidates. (Anyone remember Michele Bachmann? I’m not even sure she does.)

But what’s behind all this media tumult? For one, the GOP apparatchiks—cf. William Kristol in the Weekly Standard among many other lesser intellects—are thoroughly horrified and perplexed by the current slate of Republican presidential candidates. While that’s a bad sign for the GOP, it’s a lucky break for Obama, who will undoubtedly have a herculean task ahead of him to win another term. Secondly, the draft-Christie movement and ensuing media frenzy are the result of a classic grass-is-greener scenario. Everyone loves the guy because he doesn’t have to take a stand on anything and can be viewed as above the petty political fray; it’s the political version of Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Christie is the antidote to Romney (too Mormon), Bachmann (too crazy), and Perry (too unstable), but what kind of antidote? What do GOP voters really know about Christie? Most of the Republicans pushing and pleading for him to enter the race have no idea what Candidate Christie will eventually stand for. They are seemingly drawn to his rotund aura for a few reasons: He hails from the liberal/socialist Northeast and, thus, potentially gives the Republicans a shot of winning New Jersey in the general election, a feat that hasn’t been accomplished since the Democrats had the unfortunate luck of nominating Michael Dukakis in 1988. Secondly, his bluster, bloviating, lack of manners, bull-in-a-china-shop mentality, and missing decorum play well among the party faithful. They might point to copious YouTube clips of Christie berating average New Jersey citizens, which might look pretty familiar as proven by the last few Republican debates—the rabid crowds who booed a gay soldier; howled in glee at the news of the death of an uninsured man; and cheered at the mere mention of the death penalty. The Republican voters in 2011-12 want to be viewed as the pugnacious schoolyard bullies, roughing up and stealing the lunch money from spineless liberal weaklings. (The crowd reactions at the debates alone only further prove that the meat-and-potatoes Republican Party is now chockablock with right-wing extremists.)

But at the end of the day, the Republican Party voters really have no idea who Chris Christie is; he’s more a cult of personality now than a politician of substance. And while many GOP voters may say in public just how much they adore the guy, when it comes time to actually pulling the lever in the voting booth in the primary, they’ll likely feel a whole lot more comfortable supporting a conservative extremist this time around than an unknown. They may argue that Christie’s the kind of candidate who needs quite a bit more time basting on the national stage, say, four more year’s worth of time.

So while the media ping-pongs, debates, and pontificates over “Will he” or “Won’t he,” Christie laughs all the way to 2016—and along the way he secretly hopes Barack Obama wins reelection. Should that happen, who’ll be the frontrunner for the 2016 GOP nomination—and possibly the presidency itself? Sure as hell not Mitt Romney—for a third time. The answer is, of course, none other than Chris Christie. So why on earth would he blow his load now and jump into the race only to (likely) lose to Obama? It’s a move that will sully his chances for 2016, possibly even torpedoing his candidacy entirely. Christie isn’t an idiot. He probably realizes it’s best for him to whisper sweet nothings in the ear of the media now, give lip service to the eventual Republican nominee, and then yearn deep in his heart for an Obama victory in 2012.

How Obama Wins Reelection

Posted on by
Reply

Obamans hope Rick Perry blasts his way to the GOP nomination.

Imagine a guy who knows little about current events and politics. If he were to scan “the news”—web, print, TV—he’d be utterly convinced that President Barack Obama is a socialist, Christian-hating, America-bashing despot, recklessly hurtling the country toward insolvency. Every alleged “straight-news” article on politics out there now has the same trope: Politically, Obama is roadkill. Story over. The news articles floating about aren’t just found in the Weekly Standard, the National Review, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and all of Fox News. These Obama-as-traitor pieces have begun to infiltrate left-leaning publications as well; they’re written with absolute certitude, à la: Obama is barely holding on by a thread. His reelection isn’t in doubt, it’s simply not going to happen, period. Even liberals and Democrats are abandoning ship. His approval ratings are lower than those of al-Qaeda. According to just about every political journalist out there, it’s game over. So-called centrist journalists like ABC’s Jake Tapper simply gushes at the Republican presidential candidates, tweeting after the last GOP debate, “Propes [sic] to all the candidates tonight #Reagandabte.” (Propes? Really. Tapper’s attempt to be hip? Let’s not got give him any props for that.) What everyone in the media seems to be saying is: No point in the campaign even happening; the Republican nominee is the guaranteed next president, on to 2016.

But of course, the reality has little resemblance to what’s being circulated in the media. This much is true: Obama’s presidency is flailing (not failing), much in the way most of George W. Bush’s was throughout his eight years and much like Clinton’s was before he stood firm and gave a beat-down to then Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich. So, yes, this much is true. And why is his presidency flailing? Because his advisors and team have failed miserably at honing the Obama message and explaining in detail what the president has done. The administration has allowed countless fallacies to seep into the mainstream media. (Which leads to another article for another time: What the hell is the matter with chief of staff Richard Daley? I thought Rahm was the problem, but clearly he wasn’t.)

I promise I won’t refight the health-care law, but look how the media has since portrayed the law: They call it big-government, socialized medicine. The reality? The full benefits of the law won’t be felt for some time to come, but it at least moved the ball forward; the fact is, it helped people get insurance. If anything it didn’t go far enough and was basically a giveaway to drug companies and insurance companies.

Another example: The media has let the right incorrectly define Obama as a big-government-loving liberal who’s a champion of “wealth redistribution” (a trope adored by Fox News simpletons Bill O’Reilly and Brit Hume). That term “wealth redistribution” has all the delicious connotation loved by the tea-party Neanderthals. Imagine the scary government knocking on your McMansion, raiding your wall safe—absconding with your stacks of cash, bonds, and gold bullion, only to see your booty given away to nonwhite people. “From my cold dead hands,” indeed.

And let’s not forget the stimulus, the conservative’s and media’s favorite piñata. “Didn’t work,” they all say; “huge waste of money.” Did work. And wasn’t a waste of money. According to a report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers, the stimulus saved/created 3.6 million jobs.  But of course the tea-party crazies only see what they want to see as many of them have limited brain power. They hear, “government spending,” then tune out entirely. They don’t want to hear the truth. The reality is that the stimulus prevented a depression, the likes of which this country would have never seen before; without the stimulus, we’d probably be at 20+ percent unemployment. (That’s the reality we’d be living in if President McCain made good on his promise not to support it.)

Of course, me saying these things will only spur the nutty commenters from doubling down on their greatest hits: Obama is a socialist; Obama is a Muslim; Obama hates America. Come on commenters, you can do better than that. Wait, no you can’t.

So back to the title of this post: How does Obama win reelection? For starters, he hopes and prays that Rick Perry wins the GOP nomination. While no Republican in field right now could beat Obama, Mitt Romney has gone to great pains in reinventing himself as a not-insane conservative—though if you look at his past speeches in 2009 and 2010 about President Obama, Romney looks and sounds just as kooky as Michele Bachman and Rick Perry. Thus, say good-bye the days of Romney throwing red meat to conservatives. He’s shelved that tactic, at least for now. He’ll never out-conservative Bachman or Perry and he knows that. Just the fact the Romney was a governor of liberal, heathen Massachusetts is reason enough for the GOP stalwarts to question his right-wing cred.

So let’s assume Perry wins the nomination, and that’s a pretty solid prediction. His unabashed hatred for Social Security, for example, has only heightened his bona fides among the nutty tea partiers and hardcore GOP primary voters. His disdain of government and Washington will play well in flyover country. In essence, Perry is the poster child for today’s Republican Party: He’s an America-first religious zealot who’s intractable, inflexible; he doesn’t like homosexuals, he loves guns, he questions the validity of evolution, and he brands Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke as a traitor. All of these kinds of stances might have disqualified Perry from winning the GOP nomination just three years ago (and certainly in the era of Ronald Reagan, who, as scary as this sounds would probably be a conservative Democrat in 2011).

With Perry as the nominee, Obama and his team simply need to honestly brand Perry as a dangerous extremist. Something like, “Can a man who calls Social Security a Ponzi scheme, the head of the Federal Reserve Bank a traitor, and who advocates Texas seceding from the Union be trusted to hold the office of President of the United States?” It’s that simple. People aren’t unhappy with Obama and his policies as much as they’re unhappy with the pace of recovery. And all indications are that a President Perry would take the country back to ramant deregulation, potentially spawning another banking implosion. These are solid issues Obama can run on. Once it’s a two-man race, the dynamics change and it all hinges on…well…who’s the most hinged. And looking at the race through that prism, it’s Obama by a mile.

Obama Launches: Odds of Dismal 2012 GOP Candidates Winning Nomination, Presidency

Posted on by
Reply

Note: I usually post on Huffington. For reasons still unknown, they have decided not to publish my latest. Does the decision have something to do with the AOL merger—new rules of some sort? Probably. Or perhaps I was too harsh on the GOP? Who knows.

This morning marks the official launch of Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign. Thus, we now know for certain that there’ll be at least one candidate running for president, but what about the GOP field? It sure as hell hasn’t been an easy 2011 for the Republicans, despite having won back the House of Representatives (running on a whole host of phony issues). So far the GOP has been hard at work doing the people’s business and really spurring job growth: They’ve defunded NPR, Planned Parenthood, and the health-insurance reform bill.

The Republican election victories of 2010 might just as well have taken place 50 years ago instead of five months ago—it’s but a fading memory for most people: tea party support has plummeted, and the Republican House is looked on as a national joke. Minnesota Congresswoman Michele “Concord Whatever” Bachman herself seems to care little about governing (as if she ever did) and appears to be more focused on “taking America back” from the clutches of a foreign, black president as proven by her statements in Iowa recently:

I’m in for 2012 in that I want to be a part of the conversation of making sure that President Obama only serves one term, not two.

Part of the conversation? What conversation would that be, Michele? The one inside your brain, where the Fascist side tells the idiot side to pipe down? Or the conversation in the general populace about how utterly devoid you are of any shred of intellect? Now that Bachman has successfully flirted with the idea of becoming the leader of the free world, it’s high time to look the potential pool of 2012 GOP candidates.

Mitt Romney
Odds of Running: 2-1
Odds of Winning Nomination: 7-1
Odds of Winning Presidency: 9-1

Mitt Romney, the creepy guy with the nasty hair gel who invariably sits next to you at a wedding banquet, has already been at this dance. But apparently he’s forgotten what happened to him in 2008: The GOP establishment bolted from him faster than a Mormon says “I do.” Why? Why didn’t a telegenic, relatively well-spoken upper-crust blue blood resonate with Republican voters? It must have been RomneyCare, the health-care reforms implemented in Massachusetts by Gov. Romney that closely match the ones Obama put forth last year. Nope. Of course to Republican voters in 2008 health-care reform probably ranked lower in importance than defunding NPR; the president’s health-care reform law was nothing but a speck in Obama’s eye. No, Romney lost solely because of his Mormonism. Republicans love rich guys, but they can’t get past the Mormon cult religion. Romney’s Mormonism, to the GOP, might as well of been Scientology. With that said, the Broadway musical Book of Mormon looks to be a blockbuster. Maybe Romney can feature the show in his ads.

Newt Gingrich
Odds of Running: 9-2
Odds of Winning Nomination: 5-1
Odds of Winning Presidency: 17-1

Wow. Gingrich? Really? Ok, so he’s flip-flopped on just about every issue. The GOP can probably live with a guy who changes his position more often than John Boehner applies bronzing cream, but for God’s sake, Gingrich? As president? Of the United States? Of America? Two words here that the former House speaker should keep at the forefront of his mind: Silvio Berlusconi. Now, admittedly, Gingrich hardly matches the cocksmanship of the massively corrupt Italian prime minister, but Gingrich is a national joke, just as Berlusconi is a (sick) joke to Italians. Cheating on one’s wife: bad. Cheating on one’s wife while trying to impeach President Clinton on marital infidelity? I won’t say it, because I hate that trope. Oh well, ok, I will say it: “priceless.” The GOP faithful (“faith” being the key) pretty much think Gingrich is as big a douchebag as the rest of us do, no matter how much he espouses Republican talking points or how much he takes the opposite positions of President Obama. If Gingrich somehow manages to eek out the nomination, Obama should just spend the entire presidential campaign with his feet up on a beach chair in Hawaii.

Michele Bachman
Odds of Running: 25-1
Odds of Winning Nomination: 8-1
Odds of Winning Presidency: 134,547-1

Just when we thought there was no politician dumber, more irritating, and frankly more in need of therapy than Sarah Palin comes Congressman Michele Bachman—a poor person’s version of the former Alaska governor. I’m still not convinced Bachman’s not a Manchurian candidate thrust into the spotlight by Palin to make Palin look human—or smart. Where to begin with Bachman? Here limited brain power indicates that she may have learning disabilities. Thus, it’s not right to make fun of her. Oh well, as far as her candidacy goes, she she has precious little support among the GOP stalwarts, and is viewed on as a joke (much like Palin). And heading up the tea-party “caucus” hasn’t won her any fans among the GOP apparatchiks. (Though it was five months ago the Republicans remember it was she and her ilk who kept the Senate in the hands of the Democrats. Et tu, Christine O’Donnell.) Thus, should she run—and by all accounts she’s not running, which sucks for comedians and people who love watching car crashes—she’d never make it out of the starting gate. And just imagine an Obama-Biden/Bachman…Glenn Beck ticket. It would be a historic blowout along the lines of Obama winning 99.9999999999 percent of the popular vote. Progressives can only dream of a Bachman ticket.

Tim Pawlenty
Odds of Running: 3-1
Odds of Winning Nomination: 3-1
Odds of Winning Presidency: 11-1

Tim who? Paw-what? Oh yeah, that guy who I always confuse with Eric Cantor. Should the former governor of Minnesota win the nomination, he’ll be about as successful as another former Minnesotan: Walter Mondale. As far as being enmeshed in GOP politics, Pawlenty gets an A. But the guy lacks personality and is pretty much a behind-the-scenes player. Let’s just say he sparks the same kind of passion and enthusiasm among Republican voters as Michael Dukakis did among Democratic voters. Again, if Obama has to face this guy in the general, he might as well vacation in Tripoli. Another Obama landslide.

Haley Barbour
Odds of Running: 6-1
Odds of Winning Nomination: 9-1
Odds of Winning Presidency: 48-1

If Haley Barbour wins the GOP nomination, he’ll definitely sew up the Dukes of Hazzard voting bloc: He’s a dead ringer for the classic TV show’s old corrupt Boss Hog—not just physically. Imagine for a second Barbour on the world stage, negotiating with myriad world leaders on issues of grave importance. Take the Japanese prime minister for example. Barbour would need one translator to translate his thick, southern drawl into English, and another translator to translate that into Japanese. Thus, a President Barbour would actually cost taxpayers more. In a time of wanton spending should we really be funding two translators? But seriously, Barbour? The tea party may like his borderline, subtle racist diatribes, but his schtick tires the GOP heavies. Should he somehow fool the GOP voters into giving him the nod, it’s yet another Obama landslide. What’ll be Barbour’s first act as president? Change motto to “the South will rise again”? Change the National Anthem to “Free Bird”? Or perhaps ignite another civil war just for kicks?

Chris Christie
Odds of Running: 18-1
Odds of Winning Nomination: 4-1
Odds of Winning Presidency: 3-1

Off all the GOP non-candidates, Christie is the most reasonable and the most electable, thus, the Republican Party will throw him under the bus (well, they would, but the House has just defunded throwing people under the bus). Though Christie is panderer, a bloviator, and a gigantic ball of ego, he’d pose a challenge to Obama in the general election. Thankfully for Obama, Christie will never win the nomination, and it looks like he’s not running. Remember the last Republican politician hailing from a solidly blue-leaning state who ran for president? His name was Rudolph Giuliani, and he got his ass handed to him by GOP voters. There might as well be a platitude in the Republican Party platform that states: “We hate the northeastern United States, and if any Republicans from that area want our blessing, they better move to Idaho or Mississippi.” Imagine tea baggers voting for Christie? Sure, he’s garnered some tea-bag d-bag bona fides by rejecting billions of dollars in federal transportation money for infrastructure construction, but that’s not enough to convince the hardcore Republicans that he’s one of them. Christie is less religious than a bearded hipster in Brooklyn getting a blow job in the bathroom of bar while snorting a line of coke off a tattooed chick’s bosom. So why doesn’t he end the charade now? Well, with Ann Coulter stumping for him and all this free publicity, why not? He’s not running anyway. Obama’s lucky. Christie, on a national stage, could be a serious contender to Obama, and the race would be close, though Christie would have a lot of esplainin to do.

Mike Huckabee
Odds of Running: 3-1
Odds of Winning Nomination: 11-1
Odds of Winning Presidency: 23-1

Doesn’t that cliché goes something like “Fool me once, you fault, fool me twice, my fault”? Looking at Huckabee’s psychotic media ramblings—Natalie Portman is Sister Soulja, Obama grew up in Kenya—it’s pretty clear the Huck is running: Time to go all crazytown for the extremist party dictators. And why shouldn’t he run? Look how well he did in 2008, when he quickly dropped out of the race. Does Huckabee think that GOP voters in the past four years are going to forget that he’s a loose cannon? A John McCain without the war injuries? What does Huckabee stand for? Even he’s not sure. He’s conservative, but doesn’t have the tea-party fight to slam Michele Obama? Huckabee brings exactly nothing to the table. He should stick with his bad guitar playing on his Fox News show. In a general election, who’d vote for that guy over Obama other than the white conservative Americans?

Donald Trump
Odds of Running: 7-2
Odds of Winning Nomination: 319-1
Odds of Winning Presidency: 32-1

Wow. Of all the fringe groups to latch onto, it’s surprising Trump chose the birthers. I mean the birthers are even ridiculed by hardcore conservatives. Nonetheless, Trump thinks that supporting the Neanderthals who claim Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. is a good way to shore up his fledgeling conservative bona fides. Though Republicans have a history of selling out their beliefs to curry favor with the fringe elements of the party. John McCain bowed in front of Jerry Falwell in 2006; just years earlier McCain (rightly) viewed the guy as an extremist nutjob. So Trump is simply pandering. But being a birther isn’t going to fool Republican voters. They’ll remember Trump for supporting gay rights; for bashing President Bush; for being, well, a Democrat; for being a socially liberal New Yorker from a “godless” town. Trump is just being Trump: That is, he’s generating publicity. Maybe he’s trying to close on some massive real estate deal and maybe this round of publicity is just what’s needed to seal the deal? Whatever the reasons, Trump’s candidacy is a joke. The guy is a joke. His gold-caked ugly buildings are a joke. His swagger and bluster and lack of taste have made New York worse. So maybe him winning the presidency isn’t a bad thing. At least he’d move out of New York City.

The rest of the field: There’s Jon Huntsman (Running: 23-1, Nomination, 46-1, Presidency, 17-1), who worked for the Obama administration as the ambassador to China. Yeah, he’d really win over the anti-Obama GOP. If he runs, he’ll drop out quickly. There’s Mitch Daniels (Running: 14-1, Nomination, 16-1, Presidency, 21-1), the current governor of Indiana. Now he’d be a breath of fresh air: He only served as President George W. Bush’s director of the Office of Management and Budget. Just what we all need, a return to 2006. John Thune (Running: 12-1, Nomination, 12-1, Presidency, 19-1), South Dakota Senator, has zero personality and little support among the stalwarts. Why didn’t I include Sarah Palin above? Seriously? With her reality-TV show and her obscene speaking fees, is she really going to toss all that aside to run for an office she, herself, knows she stands little chance of winning? Of course not. Money rules her universe, and there’s no way she’ll give up her lifestyle unless she could continue the Palin-family sideshow from the White House and only tweet policy directives.

Republicans Propose Canceling Midterms

Posted on by
Reply

Republicans in the House and Senate have proposed a bill to cancel the midterm elections this November. House Minority Leader John Boehner held a press conference in his Capitol Hill office and said, “Do we really need to spend taxpayer money on this upcoming midterm election? The results are clear. We’re going to take the House…and the Senate too.” Boehner said that if the election was canceled, it would save taxpayers about $87 million.

As to figuring out just who holds which seats, Boehner said, “I’ve proposed giving the Republicans 300 seats. And the Democrats 135. I like round numbers, and that seems fair to me.” According to the bill, Boehner’s office would decide which Democratic House members are removed (he’s said he plans on the targeting “the most liberal”); he’s also proposing that these House members who he removes be held for treason. “Execution, again, seems like a reasonable course of action. It’s what the American public wants, isn’t it? I mean…I just looked at some Fox News polling, and that’s what it’s telling me.”

When asked if the Senate would follow course, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, concurred, saying, “I think Congressman Boehner has a good point. This election is just more evidence of tax-and-spend policies by the Democrat [sic] Party. Instead of spending almost $100 million on election workers and machinery, shouldn’t that money be better spent on job creation?”

Congressman Michele Bachman, a co-sponsor of the bill along with Texas Republican Joe Wilson, took the issue of election spending one step further. At the press conference in the House minority leader’s office, she said, “You know, here in Minnesota we care deeply about the national debt. The American people don’t want to waste money on elections of any sort. So I’d like to propose calling off the presidential election of 2012 as well. The American people have spoken, and they want the tea party to lead this country.” Bachman sited as evidence the current cover story in New York magazine about the potential ascension of Sarah Palin to the presidency. Holding the current issue up for photographers, Bachman said, “See, it’s right here. ‘President Palin.’ I think we can save millions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars by just scrapping the primaries and the general election altogether.”

McConnell offered Democrats an olive branch by allowing any liberal member of Congress the opportunity to commit suicide before going on trial for treason. “If the Democrat kills him- or herself, then we save even more money for the taxpayers. It’s a win-win.”

New Poll: Republicans Win 447 House Seats, 113 Senate Seats

Posted on by
Reply

A new Washington Post/ABC News/Wall Street Journal/Opinion Dynamics/New York Times/CBS/Rasmussen/Gallup poll suggests Republicans are likely to win 435 House seats come November. Some models actually predict Republicans may pick up 447 to 450 House seats. When asked how that’s possible, since there are only 435 House seats, a rather cantankerous John Cranston of Rasmussen said, “I’m not an idiot, I know there are 435 seats in the House of Representatives. So what! Republicans are polling so well, they have a great chance of winning districts not even yet created.” Several of these districts created in the pollsters’ minds are now leaning solidly Republican. Cranston went on to add, “Right now, just as we’re talking, I created another House district in my head. It’s a really cool district, too. Lots of activity, nice bike paths…but anyway…a quick scan of the polls, and the Democrat is down 59.6 percent to 31.2 percent. Looks like the Democrats will get walloped in these dreamed-up districts!”

The new poll also put President Obama’s approval rating at -24 percent. The negative number reflects something of a statistical anomaly. When asked for an explanation, The Wall Street Journal‘s Meg Pike said, “Since we were unable to find any respondents who actually liked President Obama, we thought, ‘What the hell, we might as well go negative.’ It actually probably is accurate enough.”

When it comes to the Senate races this year, the numbers were equally devastating for Democrats. Though only 37 seats are up for election, according to Opinion Dynamics’ Mike Wallingford the Republicans are feeling confident that after they win all of them, they’ll be able to strong-arm the remaining Democrats. “Think about it,” he said. “If you’re a Democrat who isn’t up for reelection this cycle, are you really going to want to keep your job? All it’ll take for incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to grab those seats is to give those Democrats a thick envelope packed with free postage and a few gift certificates from Charlie Palmer steak house.”

GOP Senate Candidate Ron Johnson: Pure Plastic

Posted on by
Reply

One word for you Ron: "Plastics."

In the seminal—and oft-quoted—scene from the 1967 film The Graduate, young Ben Braddock (Dustin Hoffman) is approached by Mr. McGuire (Walter Brooke) at Ben’s graduation party. “Ben, come with me for a minute. I want to talk to you,” says the burly McGuire. “I just want to say one word to you . . . just one word.” After a confused Ben insists he’s listening, McGuire spits it out. “Plastics. There’s a great future in plastics.”

No doubt it’s a scene in which the Wisconsin GOP shadow candidate for Senate, Ron Johnson, can relate to. In fact, it wouldn’t be at all surprising if that very scene played out at Johnson’s own graduation party—assuming he ever graduated from an institute of higher learning.

More on that later. As a political junkie and Milwaukee native, who’s been living in New York City for the past twenty years, I’ve been keenly following the Wisconsin Senate race between Democrat Russ Feingold and Republican Ron Johnson. To be honest I hadn’t really planned to give it much heed. After all, Feingold is perhaps the most moderate and ideologically free politician in Congress—occasionally to the consternation of progressives across the state. And personally his positions have frustrated my deeply held progressive (read: liberal) beliefs. Shockingly, he was the only Democrat to vote against a motion to dismiss the ludicrous impeachment hearings against Bill Clinton; he voted for the confirmation of Attorney General John Ashcroft; and voted for conservative activist John Roberts to be the Chief Justice of the (now very hard-right) Supreme Court.

Feingold took office in 1993 after beating the right-wing and supremely ineffective Republican incumbent Bob Kasten—who only made headlines in Washington, D.C., when he was busted for DWI. Of course, Feingold really made a name for himself when he co-authored, with John McCain, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (a.k.a. “McCain/Feingold”), which ironically has now been completely upended by the the incredibly obtuse decision in the Citizens United case. (How’s that for a thank-you from Chief Justice Roberts?)

Politically speaking Wisconsin is a reliable “blue” state—it has voted for the Democratic nominee for President since 1984, has two Democratic senators, and five of its eight House members are Democrats (at least as this post goes to press). The Badger State has a long tradition of spawning progressive politicians, but the state also has a streak of independence. At the state level, the governorships change parties every dozen years, but by and large it’s a state made up of left-leaning moderates.

Though every once and a while the state gets rattled by a shadow candidate, or an outright nut job (or both). Sure, Wisconsin was home to such legendary progressives as William Proxmire and Gaylord Nelson, the man responsible for Earth Day. But it was also home to psychotic red-baiter Eugene McCarthy. Currently, the title of “Wisconsin nut job” in Congress now goes to long-serving GOP Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner. In D.C.’s power corridors, he’s known as a simpleton, but in reality he’s much more dangerous. He’s a hard-right, heartless douchebag whose What-Would-Jesus-Do moment occurred in September 2005, when he voted against a bill providing $50 billion in emergency aid to the victims of Hurricane Katrina; a class act through and through.

The current shadow candidate in Wisconsin this election season is Johnson, an Oshkosh businessman who’s sunk $4.4 million of his own cash into unseating Feingold. Just who is this guy with the plainest, most white-bread name in America? Scion of the Wisconsin-based S.C. Johnson Company? Nope? Owner of the Ron Jon Surf Shop? Nope. The little-known Wisconsin millionaire heads a company called PACUR (all caps, please), a plastics-manufacturing operation. The super-exciting company makes things like blister-packaging—you know, the stuff you swore at after it caused an emergency-room visit to treat a deep-puncture wound sustained after your nineteenth attempt to open your new package of headphones.

But Johnson didn’t just sense a need and decide to build a company on his own to satisfy that need. Not necessary. You see, PACUR was actually a subsidiary of another plastics company called Curwood—conveniently located in . . . Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Curwood started operation in 1958 by Howard Curler, and when it eventually became a behemoth in the plastics industry, it merged with the Bemis Company. Curler, wanting to keep a bigger slice of the company for himself—and his family—”founded” PACUR. Who’s PACUR’s only client? Well . . . Bemis of course? And whose daughter is married to Ron Johnson? Howard Curler’s, naturally. What better wedding present than a sham company?

Even Politco’s Jim VandeHei, the right-wing journalist who hails from the adopted hometown of Johnson, has questioned the shadow candidate’s bona fides. In a story in Politico, VandeHei said that Johnson’s “media diet consists mainly of The Wall Street Journal and talk radio” and that “he is very reluctant to engage in specifics on Social Security and Medicare.” He concludes that Johnson will be more of a message candidate; not one who actually attempts to get legislation passed.

I suppose if this crackpot wins the election, Wisconsin residents can only hope he abides by that principle, as Johnson’s positions on the issues are laughable if they weren’t so dangerous: Global warming is caused by sunspots; all government spending is bad (unless it benefits his plastics company); the only solution to immigration is “securing the borders”; Social Security is a “ponzi scheme“; BP was unfairly criticized; and the Federal Reserve should be abolished. These are just the appetizers.

If Johnson somehow manages to eke out a win—and recent polls suggest he just might—Wisconsin residents shouldn’t be surprised when he embarrasses the state and vies for the most ineffective member of Congress. At best he’ll be Sarah Palin in a cheap suit who lacks her oratorical gifts. (See Feingold wallop Johnson in the most recent debate here. Johnson slurs his words and races through his talking points like a drunk trying to pick up a floozy.) Like all the despicable tea-party candidates running for Congress, Johnson will spend his time on the Senate floor bloviating and grandstanding—making speeches espousing his homophobia, blocking every effort to dig us out of Bush’s recession, probably joining the birther movement. In essence, he’ll mimic his supreme leader, Sen. Jim DeMint, the deranged knuckle-dragger from South Carolina.

Democrats and liberals alike can take some comfort, however. Although I’ve argued that the midterm elections are going to be far more favorable to Democratic candidates than the “liberal” media has predicted, I may be wr . . . wr . . . wrong. If I am, President Obama and his Democratic colleagues needn’t cry in their collective beers. Once the electorate has a taste of the tea partiers—a Sen. Sharron Angle, a Sen. Rand Paul, or that insane Congressional candidate and tea partier who dresses up like a Nazi—they’ll be angry angry enough to correct their mistakes and hopefully vote back into office the political party that at least began to dig us out of Bush’s truculent economic crap storm. And that bitter tea taste will still linger in the mouths of voters come 2012, when President Obama trounces the Sarah Palin/Glenn Beck ticket, winning more than 500 electoral votes—a much-needed bright light at the end of an incredibly dark tunnel.

If Feingold does in fact manage to snag a victory in November—and there’s some glimmer of hope—the entire Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee will need to rethink the tactics used by its Democratic candidates. As the right wingers are so eager to point out, Feingold is the only Senate candidate who’s actually running on his vote to pass the health care reform bill. Should he win, it’ll prove that Democrats should have run on their records instead of running away from them.

Why the Republican Party Should Be Abolished

Posted on by
Reply

The Tea Party could give Rep. John Boehner a real reason to cry.

Leading up to the 2008 presidential election, the country—while tumbling down the hill into an economic swamp—was still dominated by the two political parties. Sure, the Democrats had run the table: They snatched the presidency from the jaws of the Republicans and also in 2008 solidified their hold on Congress, winning more seats in the House and Senate.

Since Barack Obama’s inauguration, however, the two-party system has been upended. In just two year’s time, the Republican Party is on the path to oblivion and bordering on irrelevancy. Much of the blame (or credit, depending on whose camp you’re in) can be placed squarely with the Tea Party. Instead of looking at the Tea Party extremists as competitors, the Republican Party opted to coddle them; acted as enablers when the racist Tea Partiers shouted down members of Congress during the health care debate.

Tactically it will turn out to be a huge error by the Republican establishment. Sarah Palin and her loyal nutjobs are only too happy to toss overboard establishment Republican candidates. See especially the Tea Party support of Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in New York’s 22nd Congressional election last year, throwing moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava to the wolves. Senate candidate and extremist Marco Rubio in Florida also benefited hugely from Tea Party support. The Tea Baggers forced Republican stalwart Charlie Crist to run as an independent. These two examples should have served as warning signs for Republicans. The Tea Party isn’t just out to topple the Obama administration: It’ll happily destroy Republicans too. And the Tea Party isn’t going away.

In fact, just this week the “unofficial” Tea Party Grand Dame Michele Bachmann got approval from the House to form a Tea Party caucus (though which House members other than Bachmann who will sign up remain a mystery.) Rightly the Democrats were only too happy to help Bachmann set up her little cabal. Anything to shine a light on what the Tea Party really stands for will only help the Democratic Party. Surely Harry Reid is thanking the Tea Party for helping give Sharron Angle—a extremist in the true sense of the word and undeniable idiot—the Republican nod in Nevada. Instead of Reid fighting to save his political life, he’s jumped to a huge lead. Hey Republicans: With friends like the Tea Party….

Clearly, many Republicans thought the Tea Party, spawned during the health care debate, would simply help topple the Democrats’ agenda. Let ‘em organize, so thought the Republican leadership, it’ll help sink the Obama agenda and help sweep us into power. The reality is that this November’s midterm elections may not turn out nearly as bad for the Democrats as the entire punditry has predicted. I’ve written about this here, but no matter what the outcome in November, one thing is certain: The Republican Party must be abolished.

Why? Am I simply espousing a liberal fantasy? Sure, the thought of John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and the real lowlife, bottom feeders of the Republican Party—Sen. Jim DeMint, Rudy Giuliani, Marco Rubio, Arizona Rep. John Shadegg, and Texas Rep. Joe “Sorry, BP” Barton—scrambling to find a new political home is amusing, the real reason the Republican Party must be abolished is simple: It’s expendable.

If you’re a liberal/progressive, even one who doesn’t claim party affiliation, you vote for the Democratic candidate almost 100 percent of the time (if you vote). However, if you’re a conservative who believes in “small government” (code words for anarchy), why pull the lever for the Republican candidate when the Tea Party candidate will out-conservative the Republican? Those moderate Republicans who believe in things like the environment, health-care reform but also yearn for low taxes and less government might as well join the Sen. Ben Nelson wing of the Democratic Party. Hell, he even voted against extending unemployment benefits; he’s essentially a Republican. What distinguishes him from Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine? Very little.

The vote to extend unemployment benefits in the Senate is a classic example of why the Republican Party should fold up its “big tent” and remain only as an example of a failed political party in history text books. The GOP has not just become the Party of No, it’s become an example of how a party shouldn’t run the country. Republican leaders in the House and Senate have worked dubiously in the past two years to keep Americans unemployed and the economy stagnant. This isn’t pundit bloviating, simply a fact. They’ve voted time and time again to kill any and all bills and measures intended to reverse George W. Bush’s economic train of misery. Obama, in the eyes of Congressional Republicans, can do nothing right. The party is only too happy to see the U.S. get clobbered at home and abroad to score political points. That tactic alone should be a wake-up call to Americans to punish the party; it doesn’t deserve to lead. The GOP should implode, become a marginal party on the fringes of American society like the Libertarian Party or the LaRouche movement.

It’s not just liberal bloggers who believe Republicans aren’t governing. Look at Rep. Peter King of New York. He unwittingly (it seems) let slip a Republican tactic during an interview. Speaking about what Republicans stand for, he said:

I don’t think we have to lay out a complete agenda, from top to bottom, because then we would have the national mainstream media jumping on every point trying to make that a campaign issue.

Of course once the GOP establishment found out he’d spoken out of turn, they made him back track, but the damage was already done. The strategy employed by the Republicans since getting their asses handed to them in 2008 was out there for the entire world to see.

Another example of why the Republican Party should be abolished comes with their stance on the recently passed Wall Street reform bill. Naturally, the GOP sided with Wall Street from the get-go, with House Republican Leader Boehner likening the largest economic collapse in U.S. history to relevancy of a “ant.” Does Boehner really believe this kind of nonsensical statement is just what the American voting public is looking for its leaders to make? Vote in the Republicans, and we’ll bury our collective heads in the sand is apparently the GOP rallying cry.

And let’s not forget Republican Texas oil whore Joe Barton apologizing to BP when Obama mandated the company pay for the Gulf cleanup. How can anyone look at the Republican Party and deem it a necessary voice in governing? Well, not many if you look at the recent polls. Although the Democrats are looked on unfavorably by a majority of Americans, the Republicans are loathed even more for their tactics of obstruction and irresponsibility. A recent Gallup poll metes that out; Democrats have now jumped to a six-point lead in a 2010 generic poll.

I’m not advocating one-party rule but for people (voters) who’ve aligned themselves with the Republican Party, it’s time to make a choice. If you’re a moderate to moderately conservative Republican, side with the Blanche Lincoln–Ben Nelson–Mary Landrieu wing of the Democratic Party. If you’re a government-is-evil, regulation-is-bad, environment-hating Republican, side with the Tea Party.

Though the Reagan presidency is viewed on by many as a disaster, the years he governed were the last time the Republican Party had any relevance. The new player in governing just very well might be the Tea Party. Though Tea Party candidates, if elected, will give Americans nightmares and turn this country into a Fascist state, they can do some good: spark the implosion of the ineffectual, unnecessary Republican Party.

Democrats on Track to Increase Congressional Majority Come November: Sean Hannity on Suicide Watch

Posted on by
2

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Rep. John Boehner after a playdate.

Just about every major news outlet (as well as Fox News) have been gleefully positing that the Democrats are poised for massive losses in Congress after this year’s November midterm elections. All you need to do is watch about 20 minutes of news coverage—on cable or the networks—and you’ll soon conclude the 2010 midterm elections might as well be scrapped, called off. Game over already. The Democrats will lose the House and Senate. It’s a given. Why even vote? Nancy Pelosi might as well hand over her gavel to Rep. John “Man Tan” Boner Boehner.

While the party of the president in power almost always loses seat in midterm elections, the potential “storm brewing” for Democrats took on end-of-the-world, epic proportions. The Democrats, the media cried, weren’t just looking at losing both the House and Senate (the latter a complete impossibility) . . . no, the Democrats were on the road to extinction. Obama himself was declared road-kill. The unhinged even predicted impeachment. Shortly after health care reform was passed, a nutjob named Jeffrey T. Kuhner wrote an article in the Washington Times called “Impeach the President?” (Who is Kuhner? Ironically, a Canadian, who certainly benefited mightily from his country’s government-run health care system. But I digress.)

Although the nattering nabobs of negativity began the Democrats Death March right after Scott Brown’s insignificant Senate victory over a breathtakingly weak Democratic candidate in Massachusetts, it really sallied forth after health care reform was passed. Yes, according to the “liberal” media, expanding health care coverage for people in need and drastically overhauling a broken and corrupt insurance system would prove the Democrats’ nadir.

When referencing the health care bill, smug d-bags called it “ObamaCare,” said on-air as if it were “ObamaCare®.” Tee-hee . . . what was supposed to be health care reform, according to crack journos and deadbeat pundits, was simply a misguided brand: Medicare run by some Muslim guy who may not even be a God-fearing American, for chrissake!

But something funny is happening on the way to November 2010.

What was once looking to just about everyone as a certain Republican sweep of the midterms is now looking more like the Democrats will not only hold on to both houses of Congress, but they (may) actually increase their majority. OMFG! Yes, in the past I’ve been accused by those prone to violence of advocating violence, but what now? Bill “I Hate Myself More Than You Hate Me” O’Reilly might say that I’ve “drunken the Kool-Aid.” It’s actually tasty . . . but let’s look at what’s transpired on fronts political and economic since the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 was signed into law on March 30.

  • Obama’s approval rating | Despite what the news media (and Fox News) hammer home day after day, Obama’s approval ratings are at a whopping 54 percent. The loathsome Dick Morris, who for months blathered endlessly about the coming GOP takeover, is now blogging about . . . Mother’s Day. WTF? (He and his wife are threatening to cook a Mother’s Day dinner for one unlucky t-bag d-bag who purchases Dick’s latest book Toe-Sucking Prostitutes: My Life With Hookers.) Bottom line: As Obama’s numbers rise, so too do Congress’.
  • GDP | In the first quarter of 2010, the economy grew by 3.2 percent. Sufficient to stem George W. Bush’s recession/depression? No, but the the GDP numbers are the highest in the three years. Sean Hannity, you there? Anyone at Fox News on this story?
  • Consumer spending | The gloomy consumer is no longer so. In March spending is up the most in five months.
  • Financial-reform legislation | The Republicans were not content simply to sit on their hands during the health care debate. When financial-reform legislation was scheduled to be tackled in Congress, the Republicans again filibustered (well, threatened to anyway). Apparently, according to Republicans, Wall Street is in fine shape and needs no regulation. Excellent. Hey Mitch McConnell: Make sure all your GOP Senate candidates run on that. Americans love big, bloated banks.
  • Health care | Say what? Aren’t 130 percent of Americans opposed to health care? Yes according to the humor website Fox News. No according to reality. Not content on losing the debate, the Republicans have actually set their sites on overturning the law . . . just when the bulk of the benefits kick in come fall. The GOP seem to think that voters actually support health insurance companies when they deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions. Nice one!
  • Sarah Palin | Nothing reminds voters more of the extremism, intolerance, and racism of the Republican Party more than Palin, who clearly cares far more about making money than governing. Keep lambasting Obama and the Democrats, Sarah, so the independents remember the GOP is chockablock with angry, do-nothing, white men.
  • Gallup | Oops. Breaking news, Gallup proves my argument.

Now, sure, there can be seismic shifts in the electorate come November. But if you read the copious right-wing number crunching of the impending election, you’d think that Sarah Palin is on track to be appointed President after the Republican Conquistadors plunder the country of liberals, gays, Democrats, minorities, and Keith Olbermann.

Yeah, anything can happen. But if the economy improves (which it is) and the unemployment rate drops (which it surely will by November), what do Republican Congressional candidates run on?

Elect us so we can . . . reverse the positive trend the economy is taking! We don’t want job growth. Let’s return back to the days of George W. Bush, um, when banks ran wild and stole tax payer money. That’s right voters: Cast your ballot for the Republican this year so we can all enjoy the Bush recession again.

About the only hope the GOP has of overtaking Congress is a terrorist attack. And one was just foiled in Times Square, surely to the consternation of Sean Hannity and everyone at Fox News.