Thursday, June 26, 2014

Grover Norquist Thinks Song About Man Killing His Wife Is "Pro-Family"

You can't make this stuff up:

According to Grover Norquist, the song "Hey Joe" (which by the way, Jimi Hendrix only did a cover for), is "pro-family" and "pro-2nd amendment". Here are the lyrics so you can judge for yourselves:

Hey Joe, where you goin' with that gun in your hand?
Hey Joe, I said where you goin' with that gun in your hand?
Alright. I'm goin down to shoot my old lady,
you know I caught her messin' 'round with another man.
Yeah,! I'm goin' down to shoot my old lady,
you know I caught her messin' 'round with another man.
Huh! And that ain't too cool.
You don't really have to listen to the song very long to understand that it's about a man planning to kill someone. In this case, his wife. Yes, Grover thinks a song about a man killing his wife with a gun is "pro-family" and "pro-2nd amendment".

Seriously, the guy gives it away in the third fricken line! You hear this in the first 30 seconds. It's kind of hard to miss.

After many twitter users on Grover's feed kindly pointed out this little detail to him, Grover tried to offer a defense:

Okay, now Grover's trying to claim that he knew about the song being about a "horrible crime" the whole time? So where does the whole "pro-family" and "pro-2nd amendment" thing fit in again?

This shouldn't really be shocking, though. After all, the prophet Reagan (peace be upon him) seemed to entirely miss the point of Bruce Springsteen's Born in the U.S.A., so it should come as no surprise that one of his most prominent minions would be equally dense when it comes to comprehending musical verses.

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Joe Scarborough Forgets Why He Was Supposed to Be Outraged At The IRS

On Tuesday's episode of Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough provided yet another wonderful example of why no sentient human being should ever listen to Republican complaints about anything ever.

Scarborough and his panel were once again whining about IRS-gate. Scarborough was particularly perturbed by the New York Times not giving the story the exposure it so rightfully deserved:

You know, if George W. Bush or any Republican and an IRS member that went after Democrats, and then there was an internal investigation launched, you would not have time, or space on the front page to talk about women's issues. This is a scam.
 But later on in the show, a funny thing occurs. Scarbrough says the following:

If it was Henry Waxman or Darrell Issa or whomever, when the IRS gets involved in this sort of play, whether it’s against Democrats or Republicans, I think that is the time the Hill should go after him.  I’d love to see some Democrats come out and start pounding this guy too. Because there were Democratic groups also targeted as well, right? I slept through three years of law school, but even I know political speech is held to a higher standard.

Did you catch that?

Remember, the entire point of this moronic farce to begin with was that the evil thugs at the IRS were targeting poor, innocent, little conservative organizations. But here's Scarborough whining about the fact that Democrats aren't as outraged as Republicans are at the IRS, despite Democratic organizations being targeted as well. If left leaning organizations weren't able catch a break, and had to be examined closely as well, then what the hell are you guys complaining about?

By admitting that liberal groups were also the victims of scrutiny by the IRS, Scarborough manages to unwittingly destroy the entire original right-wing rationale for this inane "scandal".

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

GOP Rep Suggests IRS Conspiracy Might Not Involve Obama

It appears that IRS-gate, a scandal that's way worse than illegally selling thousands of missiles to terrorists, has been given new life since it was revealed that former IRS official, Lois Lerner, traveled back in time to destroy a hard drive that held indisputable evidence of IRS' insidious plot to inconvenience Right-wing organizations applying for tax exemptions.

Today we had yet another hearing, led by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC). He provided a head scratching comment when he was grilling current IRS commissioner, John Koskinen.

Koskinen was getting noticeably irritated by Gowdy's inane questions, and tried to explain to him that he saw no evidence of wrongdoing by either Lois Lerner or the White House. This led to the following exchange (skip to 5:18):

Koskinen: It's a good argument. All I said was the White House has revealed there were no Lois Lerner e-mails, Treasury has given you all their e-mails, but to the extent that the argument was that Lois Lerner was conspiring and e-mailing back and forth, thus far I haven't seen any...

Gowdy: You can be engaged in a conspiracy that doesn't include the White House.

What are we supposed to make of that line? There was a conspiracy involved to make conservative groups sad, and it didn't involve direct orders from Obama? This makes no sense because seconds earlier Gowdy was whining about the Obama administration sticking their noses in this "scandal", with Gowdy clearly implying that the only reason they would do that is to cover their tracks. 

But let's pretend for a minute that Gowdy doesn't think the White House wasn't involved. If that was the case, then whose orders was Lois Lerner acting on? 'Or was she leading this operation?

Of course, it is quite possible that Lois Lerner, and a few other IRS agents were acting independently, but that would be a fairly boring scandal, now wouldn't it? Let's not pretend for a second that Gowdy and his ilk aren't trying their damndest to implicate Obama for this some how. After all, Gowdy's clownish colleague, Darryl Issa, isn't.

Monday, June 23, 2014

Twitter Wars: Conan O'Brien VS. Grover Norquist!

So Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist offered a suggestion for a possible name change for the Washington Redskins, one that should surprise no one:

Washington, D.C., anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist, who has been on a long campaign to name pretty much everything after Ronald Reagan, said renaming Washington’s football team the “Washington Reagans” is a “great idea.”


“This is a great idea,” Norquist told BuzzFeed when asked about chatter about the new name on social media. “The former Redskins can be the Ronald Reagans on winning years and the Nancy Reagans on losing years. Unless that gets us in more trouble elsewhere.”
The bolded is a really nice touch. It helps perpetuate the fanatically religious belief that the Gipper could do no wrong. Ever.

As it happens, late night comedian, Conan O'Brien decided to comment on Grover's suggestion:

 This led to a little back and forth between the two:

Lots to chew on in those tweets. But Conan should know very well that without Reagan, the Soviet Union would never have fallen. I mean, it's not like conservatives have ever made the claim that communism was a highly flawed economic system that would never work and was destined to crumble or anything.

Also, too. Grover also sent out this other tweet which led to an exchange of my own:

For some reason he didn't respond to that. And here I thought I made a new friend. Alas.

Friday, June 13, 2014

Mitch McConnell: The Democrats Are Secret Republicans!

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) provides a rather odd defense for why he voted against Sen. Warren's student loan relief bill:

"The Senate Democrats' bill really isn't about students at all, its really all about Senate Democrats, because Senate Democrats don't actually want a solution for their students, they want an issue to campaign on to save their own hides this November," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
Of course, this is an incoherent mess. Democrats don't actually want to pass this bill that helps our poor people with student loan debt, and that's financed by taxing the wealthy? The only way for that to make sense is that Democrats are in fact, secret Republicans who don't truly want to pursue the class warfare policies that Republicans have claimed Democrats have wanted to do for the past few decades.

But just to pretend McConnell is serious for a nanosecond, if he truly believes what he claims, then shouldn't he and his Republican alllies have voted for the bill?  If McConnell truly believed the crap that he's spewing, he would have called the Dems bluff, but obviously he didn't, cause he himself doesn't want that to pass.

This isn't surprising of course. As I'm mentioned in the past, this sort of thing happens occasionally. Republicans realize they may not be on the side of most of the public on a given issue, so they have to resort to a bit of Karl Rovian political jiu-jitsu. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan attempted a similar gambit during the election by hilariously claiming that it was noted socialist dictator, Barack Hussein, and not they who truly wanted to eliminate the crown jewel of socialized health care after all.