Sunday, September 30, 2012

Top Romney Adviser Whines About Obama Not Killing Bin Laden Fast Enough

Former New Hampshire governor, John Sununu's been my favorite asshole Romney surrogate for a while, and today he once again demonstrated why that's the case:

The president is trying to take credit for following the strategy and the tactics put into place by George W. Bush. At some point the president is going to have to explain why he was timid on the first two or three opportunities that we had. Thank goodness Hillary Clinton was there was to convince him to do the right thing. [...] His trying to take credit for having been decisive belies the fact that he wasn’t decisive until pressed by others.
Yes, John. I'm sure if your boy, Mittens was presidenting, we would have gotten Bin Laden lickety split, by NOT going into the country where he was actually hiding out in.

I also love how Sununu tries to give credit to practically anyone else, such as Bush and even Hillary Clinton, but not Obama, the guy that actually made the order to carry out the kill. It just absolutely eats at their souls that a Kenyan, socialist, America hating Democrat (probably redundant) did what their hero Dubya never could.

Bitter tears are the best kind.

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Well, This Was Unexpected..

So yesterday, I made a rather acerbic post directed at Kevin Williamson, the editor of the National Review. Williamson said some things on MSNBC's Up With Chris Hayes on Saturday that I, as a Democrat found rather offensive, and decided to comment on it. It was a really short, non-detailed post that was just me letting out some steam, and something that I wasn't gonna dwell on beyond that point. I only linked it to two or three of the message boards that I frequent, so it was never supposed to be one of my bigger stories.

Which is why I was utterly flabbergasted to find out that the very next day, Kevin Williamson himself responded to that same post! I was quite stunned that 1) he found my blog post to begin with and 2) he bothered to give me any attention whatsoever by actually replying. Oh sure, I've gained a little bit of notoriety in the past few months, but not enough, I would think, to have an editor for one of the biggest conservative news outlets in the country to even give me the time of day. After confirming he was the real deal, I decided to make a follow up post.

Despite my admittedly rude and just simply not-so-nice comments, Kevin was extremely cordial and polite with his rebuttal, and provided a link to one of the sources that led him to make his original statement on Chris Hayes' program. Turns out Kevin's one of the types of conservatives I hate the most: the kind that  show a great deal of tact. Because now I feel like a massive jerk for how I responded. And that's not cool.

So let me just say, Kevin, if you're reading this, I'd like to apologize for not acting in the most tasteful manner. You seem like a stand up guy, so I'm gonna go amend my previous post to be far less douchey. I do appreciate you responding, and for slightly boosting my ego as well! I imagine most other conservative writers wouldn't have reacted in the same way. Like Noel Sheppard. Now THAT dude is definitely a dick.

Sunday, September 23, 2012

National Review Editor: People Who Don't Expect to do Better in Life Identify With Democrats

On Saturday, MSNBC's Chris Hayes invited the National Review's Kevin Williamson. During a discussion on political demographics, Williamson provided some commentary (skip to 1:50):

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Williamson: A couple of things are left out of that, I think. One is especially people overlook is a very strong aspirational aspect to this. You have low income people who expect to do better in life tend to be more politically conservative tend to be politically identify more with the Republican Party. Very low income people who don't expect to do any better tend to be very strong with the Democrats.
 Two things I'd like to mention.

1. This.
2. Sorry, Edited for tact.

Friday, September 21, 2012

Yep, Elisabeth Hasselbeck's Still an Idiot

Surprised I haven't seen this posted in the blogosphere. Here's The View's token right winger, Elisabeth Hasselbeck providing deep thoughts (as usual) on Romney's 47% comments, and provided this humdinger:

"I think there's a general feeling that with more and more people becoming dependent on government that by next July we could perhaps be celebrating Dependence Day, not Independence Day."
Pretty clever, no?  Oh, it's NOT clever? That's probably cause you're a lazy government leech.

Wonder if Miss Hasselbeck thinks it's a bad thing for all those corporations who get subsidies and tax breaks, and private contractors who get paid directly by the government, to be in fact, so reliant on the government?

Somehow I doubt that Lizzy would be too concerned about those people being a drain on society.

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Scott Brown: I'm Going to Vote Against Raising Taxes by Voting to Raise Taxes

 As my man, Steve Benen says here, this is your modern day "moderate" Republican:

"It's December 31," [Boston radio host Jim Braude] posed the scenario. "The only thing that is before you on the Bush tax cuts is an extension for people under $250,000, so you would be raising taxes [if the bill failed]."
"You'll vote no against it," Braude pressed as Brown hedged a bit before finally answering.
"Crystal clear. No," Brown said, contending that he was "not going to be the candidate that's gonna be -- the first thing is raise your taxes."

That last line is incredible. He's not going to take a vote that would end up increasing taxes, but which would end up...increasing taxes. How the fuck do you even argue for this? If he votes for the tax hike on the top brackets, taxes go up on the top bracket. If he doesn't vote for that particular targeted hike, then taxes on those same people that Brown's trying to protect, GOES UP ANYWAY. Except in the latter case, it also goes up for everyone else as well. How do you defend raising taxes on everyone when one of your standard rationales is that tax hikes on ANYONE is a bad thing?

Hopefully Elizabeth Warren uses this on every single one of her ads from now until the election.

Friday, September 14, 2012

Mitt Romney: I'm Far Too BRAVE To Defend Myself Against My Opponent's Lies

So the Mittster went on to do an interview on Good Morning America earlier today, and said displayed one of the worst examples of projection imagineable:

Mitt Romney told Good Morning America that he expects President Obama to "say things that aren't true" during the presidential debates this fall.

That's actually made the headlines for many news outlets today, but I think what Romney followed that up with is equally noteworthy:

“I’ve looked at prior debates," Romney said. "And in that kind of case, it’s difficult to say, ‘Well, am I going to spend my time correcting things that aren’t quite accurate? Or am I going to spend my time talking about the things I want to talk about?'”
Yes, Romney's saying that that dastardly, conniving Obama is going to be slinging loads of false accusations at him, but Romney has no intention of actually defending himself from such charges.

As amazing douchey and sleazy as that strategy is, it actually may end up being effective. As a poster on Daily Kos astutely pointed out, this is the same strategy that the Thrilla from Wasilla pioneered four years ago:

PALIN: ... And I may not answer the questions the way that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also.

VP Debate, October 2, 2008
Wingnuts at the time, thrilled that Palin didn't faint, vomit or have a heart attack when Gwen Ifill asked her to introducer herself, declared the former half-wit half-term governor the clear winner against Biden (Hannity famously stated Palin "destroyed" him), as did most of the major news outlets. I imagine similiarly, the media will be giving Mittens the same amount of leeway, sadly. Cause our media, you know, fucking sucks.

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Got Some Bad News For CNN CONTRIBUTOR Erick Erickson

One of the more eyebrow raising things I've encountered in my journeys into the wingnuttosphere, was this somewhat bizarre infatuation the right wing had with the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin. Here's a post from's (and also contributor for the same channel that provides Wolf Blitzer work) Erick Erickson from a few years ago:

Their guy:

Our guy:

See, those shots of Obambi being all wimplike and insulting the memory of the Founding Fathers (like Reagan) didn't sit right with ole' Erick. As opposed to those shots of Putin, which got the founder all nice and wet in his nether regions.

Now don't get me wrong, I understand to some degree why Mr. Erickson can't help but drool at the sight of a shirtless, male Russian. See, Putin gives off a sense of masculinity and toughness that people like Erick can't help but be attracted to. And like all right wing tough guys, Eric yearns to be in the firm, but protective embrace of big, strong father figure who will defend him from all kinds of bad people, like African Americans, Muslims, teachers, homosexuals, IRS agents, etc.

Of course, what is slightly harder to figure out is why Eric and his ilk would choose to lust after this particular object of wish fulfillment. I mean, they do realize the dude's from Russia, right? Which, for all intents and purposes, is identical to the Soviet Union, which in turn is one of the primary originators of the radical ideology that's shaped the life of Barack Hussein Obama! Aren't there any dictators of Banana Republics somewhere that would be more appropriate for these fucks to masturbate to?

In any case, I've got more bad news for little Erick. It seems the pictures in question were actually built upon a little bit of deception:

Russian President Vladimir Putin "has admitted that some of his most famous media adventures with wildlife have been carefully staged but has said they were worthwhile because they drew the public's attention to important conservation projects," Reuters reports.

"His macho appearances with everything from tigers to whales have been a staple of Russian state TV for years, cementing his image as a man of action but drawing mockery from critics who have likened them to Soviet-style propaganda."

Yep, apparently poor Erick was jizzing over a fraud all these years. All those times fantasizing about Putin blowing a load in his mouth, all the money spent over buying strap-ons to roleplay "CIA vs. KGB" with his wife, all based on a lie. Poor Erick.

Oh what am I saying? These are the same guys who whacked it to National Guardsmen, George Dubya Bush in an oversized codpiece. If anything, this news should only make Putin that much more irresistible in Erick's eyes. By the time he's done finding out about this story, I imagine he'll probably be en route to some department store to purchase several more Putin posters to plaster around his walls.

Monday, September 3, 2012

Newt Gingrich: Joe Biden's "Chains" Comments Just As Bad As Todd Akin's Rape Comments

You know, you can't count on Newt Gingrich for a lot of things - like following through on his marriage vows, especially that whole 'in sickness and in health' section - but you can count on him to defend his fellow psychotic right wing brethren.

See, Newt apparently has a sad because everyone's been picking on poor, biologically illiterate Todd Akin even after he apologized for making the Republican Party look like a bunch of simians...while never actually changing his mind on the actual point that women can't get pregnant if they're raped. Like all true heroes, Newt could not sit idly by while some random male's honor was being sullied, and leapt to Akin's defense by comparing it to Joe Biden's "He wants to put y'all back in chains" remarks (fun starts at 2:40):

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Yes, the self proclaimed "definer of civilization" and "leader of the civilizing forces", thought it was a genius idea to compare the two wildly differing comments. When David Gregory asked Newt if he was actually trying to imply the two situations were equivalent, the Newtster gave the ole' "No, of course I'm not saying that, but that's exactly it" response.

Newt also said that he feels the Democrats would easily lose on this current battle on abortion. Well to that I say, yes Newt, we are utterly terrified of having a debate on whether Republicans think rape victims should be allowed to have abortions or not. Whatever you do, please DON'T try and convince Romney to further discuss this subject!

Saturday, September 1, 2012

Oh, For the Love of Phyllis Schafly...

Well, this is unimaginably depressing. Majority in Poll Say Akin’s Remarks Don’t Reflect G.O.P.’s Views:

In the wake of the widespread outrage over a Missouri congressman’s remarks about rape and abortion, about 60 percent of Americans do not think his comments reflect the views of most Republicans, according to the latest CBS News poll.

That result includes a majority of women.

This once again seems to corroborate my theory that the only way Republicans seem to keep getting re-elected is that most people have no idea about the actual beliefs that these assholes hold. It's just like this story from Steven Benen posted a while ago:

[Bill] Burton and his colleagues spent the early months of 2012 trying out the pitch that Romney was the most far-right presidential candidate since Barry Goldwater. It fell flat. The public did not view Romney as an extremist. For example, when Priorities informed a focus group that Romney supported the Ryan budget plan -- and thus championed "ending Medicare as we know it" -- while also advocating tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, the respondents simply refused to believe any politician would do such a thing. [emphasis added]

It's even further baffling that this type of suspicion even exists considering in many cases, the Republicans tend to shout about this crap proudly from the rooftops. Seriously, how the hell do you fight this shit?