Scary lady parts


John Cassidy in The New Yorker:

Now, if the Lanigan is right about Bachmann’s chances (and most commentators agree with him), Obama’s campaign managers should be trying to build her up, on the grounds that she is unelectable. However, it seems that David Axelrod and the rest of the boys in Chicago, where the Obama 2012 campaign is based, are in the dissident camp. Evidently, they believe Bachmann needs taking down before she gains more momentum.

Why is that? My guess is that, having themselves swept from nowhere to the White House on a wave of public disgust at the Bush Administration, the Obama strategists recognize a potentially dangerous rival. On the face of it, Bachmann is a classic right-wing protest candidate. But in centering her announcement speech on a critique of President Obama’s economic record, and stating baldly that he can be beaten, she was signalling that she intends to be more than that.


My guess is she has scary lady parts. (Just like you-know-who.)

Seriously though, the media treated Michele Bachmann like a moronic nutjob until a few months ago when suddenly she became a serious contender for the GOP nomination. Now with record speed she’s back to moronic nutjob again.

This is what I think happened: Bachmann was being built up by the GOP establishment as the vagina-candidate in order to siphon support from Sarah Palin (because you can only have one vagina-candidate at a time.) This would clear the way for Mitt Romney to take the nomination.

The problem is the GOP base doesn’t like or trust Romney and Bachmann started doing too good in the polls so the GOP PTB decided she had to go.

Think about this – how often do you see negative stories about Mitt Romney? He’s supposed to be the GOP front-runner and the big money raiser but most of the stories are about other candidates. That’s because the GOP establishment doesn’t want a contest, they want a coronation.

So they are trying to rig things so the Mittster can cruise to victory over a bunch of palookas. If they have their way it will look like a contest, but the winner has already been chosen.

This is kinda like what was supposed to happen with Obama in 2008 but Hillary wouldn’t play along. (WWTSBQ)

There is one candidate however, that both party establishments are terrified of, and not just because of her lady parts.



This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

84 Responses to Scary lady parts

  1. Mr. Mike says:

    Who’s at fault, the purveyors of the misogyny or those who lap it up?

    The Kossholes might have put it out there along with the print and broadcast media but it’s the public that acts on it at the ballot box.

  2. 1539days says:

    All in all, I think Dick wants Romeny can be the nominee because he can do the same thing McCain did in 2008, suck all the energy out of the Republican base. Ironically, Romney was the conservative in the race. Even then, a lot of Republicans saw through his flip flopping. This time, it’s a whole new ball game. Romney is basically to the right of people like Huntsman and Gingrich, but that’s only because no one knows what the hell he stands for.

    In the end, the best candidate doesn’t have to win the nomination anyway.

    • ralphb says:

      Romney just pulled a nice flip-flop. What with saying the economy was Obama’s fault and then backtracking the next day. The GOP base noticed that big time.

      Speaking of Huntsman, why is he in the race anyway. He doesn’t seem to have anything to say or add.

      • Anonymous says:

        I think some of the R base could swallow some of his more moderate positions (though they’d grumble), if he had a little “fire in the belly” against Obama. But that walkback cost him big. If, with no real pressure on at all, he can’t hit harder than that, then he’s a real milquetoast.

  3. yttik says:

    ROFL! That’s a funny picture of Bachmann. It’s kind of cute, actually.

    I think Palin and Bachmann are in on this together. Bachmann is doing an excellent job of taking the media heat off of Sarah and getting the R party used to the idea of a female candidate. I’m thinking of Bachmann almost as Palin’s red carpet. I think they’re a tag team.

    Bachmann really showed some skill and awareness of how the game is played, how the media misogynists roll, when she said she wasn’t going to mud wrestle with Governor Nikki for the benefit of the press. I remember Hillary refused to play that game and so has Sarah. It’s pretty cool, for too long women have allowed themselves to be pitted against each other. These three have gotten wise.

  4. WMCB says:

    The R primary is going to be a free-for-all, and fun to watch. It’s an odd experience for me to be evaluating candidates with no real emotional investment on my part. I’ll be voting for whoever opposes Obama in the end, but I’m not for any of them, in the absolute sense. Sarah would come closest to what I’d want for a Republican, so I hope she gets in.

    Bachmann is interesting. Quite frankly, the only news clips I had ever seen of her were the most unflattering ones possible, and I admit I thought her a bit of a loon. Now that I’ve seen some lengthy interviews, it’s apparent that this is one quick, smart, competent woman who is very informed and insightful on any number of issues from taxes to foreign policy to manufacturing. But she SUCKS on social issues. Really badly.

    I’ve watched some interviews with Herman Cain, and he is killer on domestic stuff. It’s not just that he was a businessman, it’s that he is a businessman who got thrown into position after position heading a BADLY failing enterprise. And he fixed the problems. He said that part of being a leader is knowing how to listen, and then understanding what questions to ask. He’s a solution oriented person, with a track record of solving complex budgetary/staffing/streamlining/organizational problems. But he is vague and unconvincing and simplistic on foreign policy.

    Romney’s problem is that while he’s intelligent and has shown a degree of competence in various endeavors, he is owned by the old GOP establishment, and you are never sure if he has any real core convictions other than advancing the GOP. I can vote for a candidate whom I disagree with on stuff, but who is sincere and honest in their convictions, easier than one whose convictions seem tried on for size.

    Thad McCotter is really interesting, though I doubt he’ll get much traction, being far too pro-union for the teaparty crowd. But hey, he’s from freaking Detroit, he HAS to be.

    Here are some excerpts from one of his recent interviews. He has a sly deadpan humor that I think will liven up the race if nothing else. 😀

    JB: What actions by the Obama administration do you see as the biggest threats to our growth and/or liberty?

    TM: His seeking re-election.

    ———–

    What has been your approach to fitting in — or not fitting in — with the D.C. scene?

    TM: As a Detroiter, I instinctively reject the Gucci-shoed D.C. divas’ dysfunction that deems what’s nuts is normal.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/02/an-interview-with-rep-thaddeus-mccotter/#ixzz1QxXZPC00

    • angienc says:

      What has been your approach to fitting in — or not fitting in — with the D.C. scene?

      TM: As a Detroiter, I instinctively reject the Gucci-shoed D.C. divas’ dysfunction that deems what’s nuts is normal.

      See, the more I learn about McCotter the more I like him. Although I was but a wee child, I believe ole Ronnie was a dark-horse/long-shot who was able to pull a miracle & snag the nomination. I’m really hoping the same happens for McCotter. He’s the only one in the GOP field so far that I’m interested in at all.

      • WMCB says:

        The conservatives laugh at him for a bill he proposed to allow people to deduct up to $3500 in pet and vet expenses on their taxes. I myself think it was sweet – pets really are that important to many of us.

        He said “”Well, we’ve had reports of people having to turn in pets because of the economic recession,” he said. “And when you think about the relationship between people and pets and the humane way that it helps people think, it seemed to me to be a good idea, and we dropped it in” to the congressional hopper.”

        • angienc says:

          I saw that and I love that bill too! Between my parents & me, we currently have 8 rescues (4 at parents house; 4 at mine). The deduction would be great — and it isn’t just that pets are important, but they *do* cost money & I think a lot more nice people would be willing to take in one extra rescue *if* they had the deduction. Plus, a deduction isn’t really giving anybody money, it is allowing people to keep more of their own income instead of it going to taxes — I would think the Republicans would LOVE that.

        • sandress says:

          Not to mention the health benefits of pet ownership, especially for the elderly.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Okay, spammy is doing weird shit, or WordPress has a bug.

  6. ralphb says:

    Ron Paul’s Surprisingly Lucid Solution to the Debt Ceiling Impasse

    Representative Ron Paul has hit upon a remarkably creative way to deal with the impasse over the debt ceiling: have the Federal Reserve Board destroy the $1.6 trillion in government bonds it now holds. While at first blush this idea may seem crazy, on more careful thought it is actually a very reasonable way to deal with the crisis. Furthermore, it provides a way to have lasting savings to the budget.

    The basic story is that the Fed has bought roughly $1.6 trillion in government bonds through its various quantitative easing programs over the last two and a half years. This money is part of the $14.3 trillion debt that is subject to the debt ceiling. However, the Fed is an agency of the government. Its assets are in fact assets of the government. Each year, the Fed refunds the interest earned on its assets in excess of the money needed to cover its operating expenses. Last year the Fed refunded almost $80 billion to the Treasury. In this sense, the bonds held by the Fed are literally money that the government owes to itself.

    Unlike the debt held by Social Security, the debt held by the Fed is not tied to any specific obligations. The bonds held by the Fed are assets of the Fed. It has no obligations that it must use these assets to meet. There is no one who loses their retirement income if the Fed doesn’t have its bonds. In fact, there is no direct loss of income to anyone associated with the Fed’s destruction of its bonds. This means that if Congress told the Fed to burn the bonds, it would in effect just be destroying a liability that the government had to itself, but it would still reduce the debt subject to the debt ceiling by $1.6 trillion. This would buy the country considerable breathing room before the debt ceiling had to be raised again. President Obama and the Republican congressional leadership could have close to two years to talk about potential spending cuts or tax increases. Maybe they could even talk a little about jobs.

    This is really kind of brilliant of him. It’s hard to find a real downside to it.

    • ralphb says:

      In short, Representative Paul has produced a very creative plan that has two enormously helpful outcomes. The first one is that the destruction of the Fed’s $1.6 trillion in bond holdings immediately gives us plenty of borrowing capacity under the current debt ceiling. The second benefit is that it will substantially reduce the government’s interest burden over the coming decades. This is a proposal that deserves serious consideration, even from people who may not like its source.

      • Anonymous says:

        Okay, I give up. Nothing I post is posting.

      • djmm says:

        Yes, Ralph, but he also says the US should declare bankruptcy, which would create a 14th Amendment Constitutional issue:

        http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/28/news/economy/ron_paul_bankruptcy/index.htm

        He may have a good idea occasionally, but he is still crazy after all these years. Better than his son, but…

        djmm

        • ralphb says:

          If the US budget was like a household’s, he would be correct but it’s not as a sovereign nation.

          With Paul, who’s always a little crazy, you take the parts you like and throw the batshit away 😉

        • sandress says:

          Ralphb, that is one of my least favorite disingenuous things that pols do, when they talk about the US economy as though it operated on the same principles as a household’s finances or a business. Drives me fucking batty.

        • ralphb says:

          It drives me nuts to. I wish my household budget would let me print money like the Fed. Which is perfectly legitimate since we are sovereign in our own currency.

    • Anonymous says:

      Ron Paul is an odd mix of batshit kooky and surprising out-of-the-box real insight. I’d have to think on this and see what those smarter re: economics had to say, but heck, at least he seems to be exploring creative options, instead of just jockeying for the best budget soundbite.

    • 1539days says:

      I actually heard Peter Morici talk about this on Lou Dobbs last night. I think his idea was more of a reverse QE2, where we put the bonds back on the market and use that debt to pay off interest on other creditors.

    • Three Wickets says:

      It’s interesting and very Ron Paulesque. The thing is the Fed doesn’t have to “destroy” the 1.6 trillion in long term obligations currently on its balance sheet. It can simply choose not to roll them over when they mature/expire. Right now they are rolling them over, so what we have essentially is quantitative leveling, which means the Fed is neither expanding nor contracting the money supply. If core inflation becomes a bigger problem, they will rollover less. If recession and deflation becomes a bigger problem, they will rollover more and longer. Beyond the 1.6 trillion, the Fed has also guaranteed/backstopped a couple trillion more through its various other lending facilities, and I believe they can exercise the same kind of spigot control for those programs. What they can’t play with is the Fed Funds rate which is basically at zero.

      At least one trillion of the new loans/assets on the Fed’s balance sheet since the financial meltdown are subprime mortgages. The TBTF banks are also still holding trillions in subprime mortgage bundles on their books. If the Fed were to just destroy or burn these obligations, the value of similar obligations at the banks would tank as well, and we’d probably have another death spiral in real estate. The bit of good news from last week is that auction prices for these toxic assets have actually inched up for the first time since the meltdown, which has compelled the Fed to take some of the training wheels off the bike, so to speak. This is a good thing, not only for bankers, but probably everyone in the economy. Maybe we’ve found a true bottom.

      As to the debt ceiling, the Fed lends fairly directly to the Treasury these days, so Ron Paul’s idea would just be rearranging deck chairs. And our 14.3 trillion national debt is held by many others besides the Fed – corporations, banks, pension and insurance funds, mutual funds, foreign investors and sovereign wealth funds, social security, and anyone else holding longer term US treasuries. The debt ceiling limit is something we (that is the government) impose on ourselves to discipline our annual budgets and deficits. It’s something Congress needs to work out. But the US will not be defaulting, not while the dollar remains the dominant global reserve currency.

      • ralphb says:

        Dean Baker, a very good economist, does mention in the article there are other ways to control inflation rates. The $1.6 trillion is from QE2 essentially and doesn’t include the mortgage backed securities.

  7. WMCB says:

    I’m seeing some comparisons between what Gov. Quinn of Illinois is doing to what Scott Walker did. It seems that Quinn is canceling raises for state employees due to their budget crisis, and the unions are calling it illegal.

    http://www.chicagodefender.com/article-11302-ill-governor-plans-to-skip-$75-million-in-raises.html

    The difference would seem to be, to me, that Walker followed process, and the duly elected legislature actually passed new law regarding what he wanted to do vis a vis the state unions. On the other hand, it appears that Quinn is just unilaterally breaking union contracts by Executive fiat. As much as I believe state unions need to be reined in, I am not in favor of doing it illegally.

    But hey, this is the new Amerika, and Obama is setting a fine example for the likes of Quinn:

    Old and Busted: Representative govt. going through the legislative process to change laws to achieve ends the public wants.

    New and Trendy: Fuck the law and the legislature, just make an end run around them and do what you want.

    One caveat: I don’t know enough about Illinois union contracts to say for certain whether the Gov has the power written into that contract to cancel raises at will. He might. But I seriously doubt it.

  8. sandress says:

    I don’t know what to think about Bachmann and Palin, whether they’re being pitted against one another or if they’re in cahoots. I suspect the former, sadly. But I know what I think about Romney. Which is that he’s unelectable. Nobody in this country will vote for a Mormon President. Which is sad, but what I suspect to be true. If he gets the Nom (he won’t), he’d be hassled with “crazy Mormon” ads, put out by organizations with names like “Atheists for a Free America”, but probably funded by the Christian Right. And nobody is talking about this. Which makes me suspect he’s a spoiler, and the big boys want Obama to win re-election.

    • 1539days says:

      Hell, the creators of South Park are producing an anti-Mormon show on Broadway now. Let’s see these guys do the same for Mohammed.

      • JeanLouise says:

        They did and they received death threats for it. They’ve also lampooned Scientology and Christianity. They’re equal opportunity offenders.

        I saw The Book of Mormon on Broadway. It was hilarious.

    • WMCB says:

      but probably funded by the Christian Right

      I wouldn’t be so quick to assume that it would be the right. The latest poll showed that it is liberals who beat out conservatives on answering NO to “would you elect a Mormon?”

      27% of Dems said no, only 18% of Repubs.

      • sandress says:

        Well, yeah. I’m not saying Dems aren’t anti-mormon, they totally are. They’ve also neglected to ask (or you haven’t provided) how vehemently that belief runs.

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      Why is it sad that people won’t vote for a Mormon? If one knows anything at all about the religion, how it was founded by a schizophrenic and built on ideas like blood atonement (see Mountain Meadow Massacre), that are still metaphorically adhered to to this day, why wouldn’t one question the rationality of modern Mormons? They run Utah like the Catholic Church runs Rome. This is not esoteric information, it’s there for Mormon and non-Mormon alike to find very easily. If, once you’ve investigated the history of Mormons and still choose to be a Mormon, that tells me everything I need to know about your qualifications for a) critical thinking, and b) public office.

      I’d no more vote for a Mormon than I would a Scientologist. And I don’t buy the argument that this is somehow some politically incorrect picking on religions thing. I pick on all religions. But some of them are freakier than others, especially the ones with demonstrably mentally ill founders. .

      FTR, I didn’t even take the cheap shot at their secret underwear and there are enough reasons not to vote for them.

      • Lola-at-Large says:

        That doesn’t even account for the deep and abiding misogyny inherent in the religion, which is the number one reason I wouldn’t vote for a Mormon male. Screw that shit.

      • myiq2xu says:

        I didn’t even take the cheap shot at their secret underwear

        Actually, you just did. Do you know any Mormons? I’m related to a few and I know some others. They’re good people. Are you blaming them for what happened over 100 years ago?

        They run Utah like the Catholic Church runs Rome.

        We elected a Catholic before. The Catholic church has done waaaaaay worse than the LDS ever did.

      • sandress says:

        I’m anti religion in general. I’m just as anti-electing a Catholic as I am electing a Mormon or Scientologist. That said, until a Buddhist or Atheist gets an opportunity and is seen as electable, I’m fucked. What’s sad about it is that people who think of themselves as rational are going to say what you’ve said here about Mormons, and not see that there are problematic aspects of any and all religions. Singling out mormonism is not really a helpful process for finding a good elected leader.

        Personally, I don’t think religion should have any part in the process of choosing leaders, and I think that separately from my thinking about religion. I just have a problem with thinking that the president should be held as some kind of moral leader instead of just a political one. His religious choices, his/her track record with monogamy or parenting skills, whatever, it all seems immaterial to me. The question is can s/he do the job? Will s/he do the job? Does s/he have the integrity required to keep his/her personal messes out of the Office?

        • sandress says:

          I’m sure there are. How many Buddhist presidents so far?

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          Not any. No Mormons presidents either. But LDS-ers do outnumber Buddhists in Congress. http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/60334/15-Mormons-serving-in-US-Congress.html

        • angienc says:

          Buddhism is just as misogynistic as any other religion (see, I Blame the Patriarchy for some enlightenment on that) so I don’t understand the pro-Buddhism part, and, further, a Buddhist or Atheist can be just as incompetent as any one else to be POTUS — their religion doesn’t “make” them somehow competent, but yeah, I generally agree with you: a person’s religion doesn’t matter; his/her competency to do the job should be the *only* thing that matters.

          I don’t know a lot of Mormons but I did have a few as clients and they seem to be very decent people. LDS doesn’t seem that more effed up than any other religion, IMO.

        • sandress says:

          Angie, I know that some Buddhists can be, although that tends to be cultural baggage rather than inherent in the religion (at least in some of it’s later incarnations, I don’t honestly know as much about Indian, Tibetan, or Chinese Buddhism). I just try to be a little friendlier about Buddhism based on the fact that it is really only mistakenly considered a religion, much better described as a philosophy, and one with which I largely agree. And HELLS YES there are some truly incompetent and corrupt atheists. That’s why I’d prefer to consider the individual separately from their religion and/or moral foibles.

      • WMCB says:

        For me it depends on the person. “There shall be no religious test for office” refers to no barring by the State of them running for or holding office. Individual voters are more than free to factor in religion in their decisions if they want, and it’s not necessarily bigotry.

        Are there some people who would “never vote for X religion” who are flat out unthinking bigots? Yup. But there are also people who have concerns about the affect any religion might have on the decision-making of the candidate. How “devout” are they? What evidence is there of their religion coloring their decisions, for bad OR for good? Religion (or the lack thereof) is part and parcel of the person, and to consider to what degree it influences their thinking is not off limits IMO.

        An extreme fundamentalist Christian would give me pause. Not that I could not vote ever vote for one, but yes, it would be a factor in my weighting of pros and cons. I would take a second look at an atheist. Why? Because he/she could either be the great sort of atheist, who simply rejects a belief in God (like my husband), or the nasty sort who seems intent on denigrating people of faith at every turn. Yeah, they exist. A Muslim would give me pause. Because for all my beefs with the Catholic church or the fundies, most of their most egregious abuse are far in the past. I have modern-day concrete examples of the potential negative influence of Islam on societies and countries, and it ain’t pretty. So hell yes, I would take a very close look at that candidate.

        There is no religion that I can categorically say I would NEVER vote for. But I am not at all ashamed of saying that it’s a legitimate thing to consider and examine for the individual voter.

        • ralphb says:

          Very well put. I second that.

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          Well damn, maybe I should just shut up and let you speak for me. You running in 2012? Ya got my vote if so….

        • sandress says:

          Fair enough. Call me an idealist, in that I’d hope that in a representative democracy people would just sit on their beliefs and act on the will of the people. But that might be naive.

        • WMCB says:

          I could never run for office. I’ve been married three times, I smoke, and I swear like a sailor.

        • myiq2xu says:

          I’ve been married three times, I smoke, and I swear like a sailor.

          Raygun was married twice, Obama smokes and Nixon swore like a sailor.

        • WMCB says:

          I joke, but actually I would have a hard time entering the sewer of politics as it currently exists. Maybe I should just get hired on as a speechwriter for some candidate. I could write barnburners, and they could just edit out all the fucks. 😀

        • angienc says:

          Maybe. But I think that your argument that considering a person’s religion as a factor is only ok because we are talking about Mormons, Fundamentalist Christians & the CO$. If we were talking about, say a Jew person, I don’t think your argument would sound as “acceptable.” At least it wouldn’t to me. I expect a candidate who, as JFK said, will not put their religion BEFORE his/her duty of elected office. Other than that, it shouldn’t matter.

          Married 3x, smoking & swearing like a sailor? Ya got my vote.

          OT: I swear like a sailor too, but you are what you eat! 😉

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          I disagree. It depends on the actual religious beliefs of the Jewish person, just like it would in the case of a Catholic, etc. I wouldn’t vote for a Hassidic Jew anymore than I’d vote for a Catholic member of Opus Dei. The degree of your religious fervor matters too.

    • Three Wickets says:

      Which makes me suspect he’s a spoiler, and the big boys want Obama to win re-election.

      Could be. Obama loses 2012 if the opposition focuses their attacks on him and not each other. If they stay on Obama, then whoever gets the nomination from the opposition has a pretty good shot at winning, even someone from the Tea Party. People like Rove who are already stirring up infighting may in fact be helping Obama.

  9. angienc says:

    I don’t only think that TPTB in the GOP have already “elected” Mitt Romney as its candidate, I also kind of think that Mitt’s job is going to be to make sure that Obama gets re-elected. There’s a lot of bad shit that still need to be done (to Social Security, Medicare, etc) & the GOP want Obama to do it (so the so-called “progressives” will STFU — because as we’ve seen with THREE wars going on now, if Obama does it, the “progressives” are “cool” with it).

  10. WMCB says:

    This was Sen. Marco Rubio’s response to President Petulant (D-Dickville) speech. The Dems are scared to death of this guy being on the ticket as VP. Whether you or I like him is immaterial. He would play well across America – very well indeed.

    • angienc says:

      McCotter/Rubio 2012! LMAO!!

      Seriously, the GOP would be morons to not run Rubio in the VP slot (and no, I don’t like his stances much, so this isn’t an endorsement, it’s a fact).

    • jjmtacoma says:

      Yes, that is super bad. Even though what he means is that he wants to stick it to the middle class and let the poor kids starve, he says the things “middle America” understands. It speaks to the bootstraps crowd – which a lot of Americans belong to. The government should be hiring like crazy and ordering stuff and building roads and doing other infrastructure projects. Maybe financing green energy. Deficit spending is OK if you are creating jobs.

      Obama speaks in circles and applause lines, he never actually says anything in a direct way so whatever he says requires a secret decoder ring to figure out what is really going to happen.

      • WMCB says:

        he wants to stick it to the middle class and let the poor kids starve,

        No, I don’t think he wants that. Whether or not his policies might or might not result in that is debatable, but he doesn’t WANT that, I don’t think. Any more than I think that most Democrats WANT to completely destroy the private sector economy and business climate.

        Me, I’m a firm Capitalist who believes in enough Socialism to cushion the harsher edges of the powerful prosperity engine that capitalism indeed is. Which means neither side likes me much. ;D

        • jjmtacoma says:

          What I mean here is that we have been POURING money on business and the rich while running up deficits for over 10 years. They aren’t hiring. The governement is going to HAVE to step in with projects.

        • ralphb says:

          jjm, Consider where we have been pouring that money. Primarily to Wall St, Big Banks, and large corps like GE who have taken the US taxpayer’s money and some have created jobs but they’ve created them in China or other low wage meccas.

          Almost nothing, except more regulation, has been poured onto small businesses who might hire people in America. Start up money for most types of businesses is very hard to come by, unless you want to give up control of your idea or enterprise.

          Hiring more government workers isn’t going to do anything helpful for the economy in the long run. It will probably hurt it.

      • sandress says:

        Have I mentioned recently that I love you?

    • ralphb says:

      He’s really good. Either sincere or he’s got the fakery down pat!

  11. WMCB says:

    Yemen Drone War expanding now into Somalia. So now it is FIVE countries we are at war (oh, excuse me, “kinetic military action”) with. This is your “anti-war” president, fucking Obots. I would say I hope you choke on him, but unfortunately it’s all of us.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/world/africa/02somalia.html?_r=1&ref=global-home&pagewanted=all

    • angienc says:

      Anti-War President and Nobel Peace Prize recipient don’t forget!
      You know, my first husband is from Oslo, Norway & they generally are really decent folks, but I hope the Norwegians are hanging their heads in shame.

  12. DeniseVB says:

    Romney, euwwwww. Don’t let the Duopoly parties choose ANY candidate for us !

    Like Bush, Kerry, Bush, McCain, screw the “it’s their turn” meme, go with your guy! Or girl 🙂

    • WMCB says:

      That’s one of the most powerful TeaParty videos I’ve yet seen, Denise. Love the LIES stamp on both the elephant and the donkey.

      People who ever said that it was not a genuine, populist, grassroots movement were entirely blinded by ideology and not paying attention at all.

    • ralphb says:

      I like that video. Some of the tea party videos are too marshal for me. They need a little sublety.

    • Three Wickets says:

      Hey, that “here’s to the crazy ones” is riffing off that Apple ad campaign in the 80s. The quote which is commonly attributed to Steve Jobs was originally written by Jack Kerouac I believe.

Comments are closed.